<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_2040207</id>
	<title>Cellulosic Biofuel Finally Ready For the Road</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266317940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://netstreamline.org/willemdebruijn/" rel="nofollow">wdebruij</a> writes <i>"After years of research, promises, and <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/05/01/07/1846247/Straw-Converted-to-Gasohol-in-Canada">plenty</a> <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/story/07/07/15/2111229/Americas-First-Cellulosic-Ethanol-Plant">of</a> <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/04/22/2120218/1Gallon-Green-Gasoline-In-Sight">discussion</a> <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/03/19/0327213/Start-Up-Genetically-Modifies-a-Better-Biofuel-Bug">here</a>, biofuel from inedible greens such as switchgrass &mdash; and even from corn cobs &mdash; may <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/16/16climatewire-economics-improve-for-first-commercial-cellu-93478.html">finally be getting economically viable</a>. Two enzyme producers, Novozyme and Genencor, have both announced that they can now produce fuel at prices competitive with current corn and petrol-based methods. This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that <a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/216723/7305dfe4584f4771f2de457f0f092f5f.htm">food-based biofuels could cause hunger</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>wdebruij writes " After years of research , promises , and plenty of discussion here , biofuel from inedible greens such as switchgrass    and even from corn cobs    may finally be getting economically viable .
Two enzyme producers , Novozyme and Genencor , have both announced that they can now produce fuel at prices competitive with current corn and petrol-based methods .
This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wdebruij writes "After years of research, promises, and plenty of discussion here, biofuel from inedible greens such as switchgrass — and even from corn cobs — may finally be getting economically viable.
Two enzyme producers, Novozyme and Genencor, have both announced that they can now produce fuel at prices competitive with current corn and petrol-based methods.
This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870</id>
	<title>Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266322740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even in the 10\% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad!  It causes all manner of problems in the long term.</p><p>Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well.  Has there been much discussion of that?  I fear there hasn't been any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in the 10 \ % mixture we are currently seeing , ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad !
It causes all manner of problems in the long term.Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well .
Has there been much discussion of that ?
I fear there has n't been any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in the 10\% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad!
It causes all manner of problems in the long term.Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well.
Has there been much discussion of that?
I fear there hasn't been any.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163502</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266332460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The US, with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US. So much so, that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets. By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports, we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries</i> </p><p>19\% of the land in the US can be farmed.</p><p>In most of Africa the number is less than 5\%. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arable\_land\_percent\_world.png" title="wikipedia.org">Arable land percent world.png</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>The US and China are the major producers - third world production is small - almost negligible - and most of the world's production is still in the western hemisphere. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2005maize.PNG" title="wikipedia.org">2005maize.PNG</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Tell me how you get the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina to agree to limit exports?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US , with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US .
So much so , that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets .
By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports , we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries 19 \ % of the land in the US can be farmed.In most of Africa the number is less than 5 \ % .
Arable land percent world.png [ wikipedia.org ] The US and China are the major producers - third world production is small - almost negligible - and most of the world 's production is still in the western hemisphere .
2005maize.PNG [ wikipedia.org ] Tell me how you get the US , Canada , Brazil and Argentina to agree to limit exports ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US, with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US.
So much so, that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets.
By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports, we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries 19\% of the land in the US can be farmed.In most of Africa the number is less than 5\%.
Arable land percent world.png [wikipedia.org] The US and China are the major producers - third world production is small - almost negligible - and most of the world's production is still in the western hemisphere.
2005maize.PNG [wikipedia.org] Tell me how you get the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina to agree to limit exports?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166130</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>Lupu</author>
	<datestamp>1265056380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So even though the price at the pump is less, I'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.</p></div><p>Paying a little extra for something more ecologically sustainable would hardly be qualified as "foolish". Most people could well afford it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So even though the price at the pump is less , I 'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.Paying a little extra for something more ecologically sustainable would hardly be qualified as " foolish " .
Most people could well afford it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So even though the price at the pump is less, I'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.Paying a little extra for something more ecologically sustainable would hardly be qualified as "foolish".
Most people could well afford it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162802</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>mirkob</author>
	<datestamp>1266327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your gas price IS quite reasonable!</p><p>here in italy you currently pay about 1.3 euros/liter</p><p>considering 1 euros about 1.33 dollar  and 1 liter about 1/3.8 gallon</p><p>so its about 2 dollar for 1/3.8 gallon  or about than 7.5 dollar/gallon</p><p>and it has gone higher...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your gas price IS quite reasonable ! here in italy you currently pay about 1.3 euros/literconsidering 1 euros about 1.33 dollar and 1 liter about 1/3.8 gallonso its about 2 dollar for 1/3.8 gallon or about than 7.5 dollar/gallonand it has gone higher.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your gas price IS quite reasonable!here in italy you currently pay about 1.3 euros/literconsidering 1 euros about 1.33 dollar  and 1 liter about 1/3.8 gallonso its about 2 dollar for 1/3.8 gallon  or about than 7.5 dollar/gallonand it has gone higher...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>mpoulton</author>
	<datestamp>1266323640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even in the 10\% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad!  It causes all manner of problems in the long term.</p><p>Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well.  Has there been much discussion of that?  I fear there hasn't been any.</p></div><p>Citation?  Every report in the last 15-20 years has said the exact opposite.  In fact, all current production vehicles are designed specifically for 10\% mixtures, and many new vehicles are designed for E85 right out of the factory.  What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done?  The problems reported years ago were due to material incompatibility (no longer an issue at all) and lack of lubricity (also no longer a problem).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in the 10 \ % mixture we are currently seeing , ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad !
It causes all manner of problems in the long term.Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well .
Has there been much discussion of that ?
I fear there has n't been any.Citation ?
Every report in the last 15-20 years has said the exact opposite .
In fact , all current production vehicles are designed specifically for 10 \ % mixtures , and many new vehicles are designed for E85 right out of the factory .
What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that has n't already been done ?
The problems reported years ago were due to material incompatibility ( no longer an issue at all ) and lack of lubricity ( also no longer a problem ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in the 10\% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad!
It causes all manner of problems in the long term.Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well.
Has there been much discussion of that?
I fear there hasn't been any.Citation?
Every report in the last 15-20 years has said the exact opposite.
In fact, all current production vehicles are designed specifically for 10\% mixtures, and many new vehicles are designed for E85 right out of the factory.
What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done?
The problems reported years ago were due to material incompatibility (no longer an issue at all) and lack of lubricity (also no longer a problem).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161950</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1266323100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b> <i>This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger."</i> </b> </p><p>They JUST figured this out!!!????</p><p>This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!</p><p>I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!  NOT a major food source!</p><p>Glad someone is finally waking up.</p></div><p>Speaking of waking up, when have reported "shortages" in other products and industries related to creating fuel have been due to <b>actual</b> supply and demand issues and NOT from greed and corruption?</p><p>We're not paying $2.50/gallon because that's an accurate reflection of how much oil is left on this planet and that's a fair price.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger .
" They JUST figured this out ! ! ! ? ? ?
? This is the problem with the green lords... they do n't think ahead of the unintended consequences ! I 've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America ( Brazil ?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE !
NOT a major food source ! Glad someone is finally waking up.Speaking of waking up , when have reported " shortages " in other products and industries related to creating fuel have been due to actual supply and demand issues and NOT from greed and corruption ? We 're not paying $ 2.50/gallon because that 's an accurate reflection of how much oil is left on this planet and that 's a fair price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger.
"  They JUST figured this out!!!???
?This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!
NOT a major food source!Glad someone is finally waking up.Speaking of waking up, when have reported "shortages" in other products and industries related to creating fuel have been due to actual supply and demand issues and NOT from greed and corruption?We're not paying $2.50/gallon because that's an accurate reflection of how much oil is left on this planet and that's a fair price.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161996</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>Amorymeltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1266323280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464.abstract" title="pnas.org">study</a> [pnas.org] shows that switchgrass produces 540\% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed, yeah, I'd say it's a little about efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a study [ pnas.org ] shows that switchgrass produces 540 \ % more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed , yeah , I 'd say it 's a little about efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a study [pnas.org] shows that switchgrass produces 540\% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed, yeah, I'd say it's a little about efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163590</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1266333240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cars may have engines that are build to run on E85, but to run both the E10 and E85, engine needs a compression ration that is suboptimal for E85; being able to do something and doing it well are two different things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cars may have engines that are build to run on E85 , but to run both the E10 and E85 , engine needs a compression ration that is suboptimal for E85 ; being able to do something and doing it well are two different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cars may have engines that are build to run on E85, but to run both the E10 and E85, engine needs a compression ration that is suboptimal for E85; being able to do something and doing it well are two different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162222</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1266324420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try living in most parts of Southern California without a car and see how far you go.<br>Not everywhere has the transport systems that cities like New York, Chicago and DC have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try living in most parts of Southern California without a car and see how far you go.Not everywhere has the transport systems that cities like New York , Chicago and DC have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try living in most parts of Southern California without a car and see how far you go.Not everywhere has the transport systems that cities like New York, Chicago and DC have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164028</id>
	<title>Some questions</title>
	<author>Michael Woodhams</author>
	<datestamp>1266336480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm happy about the progress, but I have a few questions.</p><p>The feedstock ({corn cobs|sawdust|whatever}) will have to be transported from {the farm|the sawmill|wherever} where currently it just collects or is burned. The feedstock is bulky and if it has high moisture content it is heavy. They are talking about large facilities, so the transport distance will be appreciable. How much effect will this have on the energy efficiency budget?</p><p>There will be a distillation stage in production, which requires a heat source. Where will they get this heat? (Hopefully, by burning some fraction of the ethanol they've just produced, or some of the feedstock. If it turns out to be cheaper to burn natural gas for the distillation rather than ethanol which needs no transportation and is available in bulk at wholesale price, this will say something very bad about the economics of the production.) An additional thought: if wind energy really picks up, we'll have a situation where electricity prices for bulk consumers will be highly variable, depending on the wind. It would cost little to put electric heaters into the distillers, which you could then use only when electricity is cheap. You do, however, have to pay for a high capacity connection to the grid which you will only use intermittently.</p><p>There must be some waste from this process. What is the nature of this waste, and will it be difficult to dispose of safely?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm happy about the progress , but I have a few questions.The feedstock ( { corn cobs | sawdust | whatever } ) will have to be transported from { the farm | the sawmill | wherever } where currently it just collects or is burned .
The feedstock is bulky and if it has high moisture content it is heavy .
They are talking about large facilities , so the transport distance will be appreciable .
How much effect will this have on the energy efficiency budget ? There will be a distillation stage in production , which requires a heat source .
Where will they get this heat ?
( Hopefully , by burning some fraction of the ethanol they 've just produced , or some of the feedstock .
If it turns out to be cheaper to burn natural gas for the distillation rather than ethanol which needs no transportation and is available in bulk at wholesale price , this will say something very bad about the economics of the production .
) An additional thought : if wind energy really picks up , we 'll have a situation where electricity prices for bulk consumers will be highly variable , depending on the wind .
It would cost little to put electric heaters into the distillers , which you could then use only when electricity is cheap .
You do , however , have to pay for a high capacity connection to the grid which you will only use intermittently.There must be some waste from this process .
What is the nature of this waste , and will it be difficult to dispose of safely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm happy about the progress, but I have a few questions.The feedstock ({corn cobs|sawdust|whatever}) will have to be transported from {the farm|the sawmill|wherever} where currently it just collects or is burned.
The feedstock is bulky and if it has high moisture content it is heavy.
They are talking about large facilities, so the transport distance will be appreciable.
How much effect will this have on the energy efficiency budget?There will be a distillation stage in production, which requires a heat source.
Where will they get this heat?
(Hopefully, by burning some fraction of the ethanol they've just produced, or some of the feedstock.
If it turns out to be cheaper to burn natural gas for the distillation rather than ethanol which needs no transportation and is available in bulk at wholesale price, this will say something very bad about the economics of the production.
) An additional thought: if wind energy really picks up, we'll have a situation where electricity prices for bulk consumers will be highly variable, depending on the wind.
It would cost little to put electric heaters into the distillers, which you could then use only when electricity is cheap.
You do, however, have to pay for a high capacity connection to the grid which you will only use intermittently.There must be some waste from this process.
What is the nature of this waste, and will it be difficult to dispose of safely?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786</id>
	<title>Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266322200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor market management, lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine, not biofuels. Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving. If the people hadn't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.</p><p>There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world. Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor market management , lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine , not biofuels .
Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa 's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving .
If the people had n't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world .
Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term , but will lead to greater investment and supply long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor market management, lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine, not biofuels.
Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving.
If the people hadn't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world.
Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162882</id>
	<title>This is marketing, not anything new...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266328140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are jumping the gun here, enzymes are only one piece of a complex puzzle, and the amount of misinformation due to marketing/sales/investment needs in enormous. I am a senior scientist at a cellulosic biofuel R&amp;D company who is partnered with Novozymes (I have used Genencor products as well, even comparing head to head). For many reasons (which I will not get into) we are still in the infancy stages of large scale processing and production. Current outlook is probably more like 5 years...</p><p>-my 2 cents-</p><p>Other than that, I will enjoy reading all of the regurgitated malarchy people will post in this thread.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are jumping the gun here , enzymes are only one piece of a complex puzzle , and the amount of misinformation due to marketing/sales/investment needs in enormous .
I am a senior scientist at a cellulosic biofuel R&amp;D company who is partnered with Novozymes ( I have used Genencor products as well , even comparing head to head ) .
For many reasons ( which I will not get into ) we are still in the infancy stages of large scale processing and production .
Current outlook is probably more like 5 years...-my 2 cents-Other than that , I will enjoy reading all of the regurgitated malarchy people will post in this thread .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are jumping the gun here, enzymes are only one piece of a complex puzzle, and the amount of misinformation due to marketing/sales/investment needs in enormous.
I am a senior scientist at a cellulosic biofuel R&amp;D company who is partnered with Novozymes (I have used Genencor products as well, even comparing head to head).
For many reasons (which I will not get into) we are still in the infancy stages of large scale processing and production.
Current outlook is probably more like 5 years...-my 2 cents-Other than that, I will enjoy reading all of the regurgitated malarchy people will post in this thread.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169400</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Script Cat</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah the how virtuous to have expensive gas.<br>
And now the guy that works at the gas station can't afford to drive to work.<br>
Advancement means cheaper better faster. This is what pulls us out of the mud.<br>
If switch grass can do this then that's awesome.<br>
That said corn ethanol is just playtime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah the how virtuous to have expensive gas .
And now the guy that works at the gas station ca n't afford to drive to work .
Advancement means cheaper better faster .
This is what pulls us out of the mud .
If switch grass can do this then that 's awesome .
That said corn ethanol is just playtime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah the how virtuous to have expensive gas.
And now the guy that works at the gas station can't afford to drive to work.
Advancement means cheaper better faster.
This is what pulls us out of the mud.
If switch grass can do this then that's awesome.
That said corn ethanol is just playtime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161986</id>
	<title>Regarding massive land use changes</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1266323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about algae farms on the ocean? Seaweed farms? Who says the biomass has to come from corn or any other land based crop? The farms could be right next to the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/09/06/1755216.shtml" title="slashdot.org">data centers</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about algae farms on the ocean ?
Seaweed farms ?
Who says the biomass has to come from corn or any other land based crop ?
The farms could be right next to the data centers [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about algae farms on the ocean?
Seaweed farms?
Who says the biomass has to come from corn or any other land based crop?
The farms could be right next to the data centers [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162672</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>ThiagoHP</author>
	<datestamp>1266326940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost.  It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability.  Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel.</p></div><p>You've got very wrong information here. Just 8 million cars in Brazil? The article said 8 million cars <em>running on ethanol</em>, not 8 million cars overall. There are almost 28 million cars running now. 25\% is the amount of ethanol in the gas sold here. 85\% of the current Brazilian car production is comprised of flex-fuel cars, that run on ethanol, gas or any mixture of them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.</p></div><p>That's right, but most of the deforestation is done for wood and to open land to cattle, not agriculture. The Amazon land is not good for agriculture.
</p><p>(Reposting as myself because I posted as anonymous by mistake)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main issue with biofuels is n't really food or cost .
It 's about land use , energy efficiency and sustainability .
Brazil is usually given as a great example , but they have only 8 million cars , which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel , the rest is still gasoline or diesel.You 've got very wrong information here .
Just 8 million cars in Brazil ?
The article said 8 million cars running on ethanol , not 8 million cars overall .
There are almost 28 million cars running now .
25 \ % is the amount of ethanol in the gas sold here .
85 \ % of the current Brazilian car production is comprised of flex-fuel cars , that run on ethanol , gas or any mixture of them.And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.That 's right , but most of the deforestation is done for wood and to open land to cattle , not agriculture .
The Amazon land is not good for agriculture .
( Reposting as myself because I posted as anonymous by mistake )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost.
It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability.
Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel.You've got very wrong information here.
Just 8 million cars in Brazil?
The article said 8 million cars running on ethanol, not 8 million cars overall.
There are almost 28 million cars running now.
25\% is the amount of ethanol in the gas sold here.
85\% of the current Brazilian car production is comprised of flex-fuel cars, that run on ethanol, gas or any mixture of them.And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.That's right, but most of the deforestation is done for wood and to open land to cattle, not agriculture.
The Amazon land is not good for agriculture.
(Reposting as myself because I posted as anonymous by mistake)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162718</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1266327180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luckily, biofuels aren't subject to the monopolistic bullshit of OPEC, so with innovation, open markets, and competition, price should theoretically go down (until hitting whatever the floor is, which is hopefully lower than gasoline).  <br> <br>
I will really enjoy watching these oil rich assholes seal their own fate.  They've had decades to develop actual functioning economies, but instead they're all rich on the fat revenues oil generates and have done nothing to diversify their economies away from oil (with the exception of the glitzy, debt-ridden failure that is Dubai) .  You ever seen the prima-donnas around the middle east countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia?  And they say the USA is full of lazy decadence... pfft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , biofuels are n't subject to the monopolistic bullshit of OPEC , so with innovation , open markets , and competition , price should theoretically go down ( until hitting whatever the floor is , which is hopefully lower than gasoline ) .
I will really enjoy watching these oil rich assholes seal their own fate .
They 've had decades to develop actual functioning economies , but instead they 're all rich on the fat revenues oil generates and have done nothing to diversify their economies away from oil ( with the exception of the glitzy , debt-ridden failure that is Dubai ) .
You ever seen the prima-donnas around the middle east countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia ?
And they say the USA is full of lazy decadence... pfft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, biofuels aren't subject to the monopolistic bullshit of OPEC, so with innovation, open markets, and competition, price should theoretically go down (until hitting whatever the floor is, which is hopefully lower than gasoline).
I will really enjoy watching these oil rich assholes seal their own fate.
They've had decades to develop actual functioning economies, but instead they're all rich on the fat revenues oil generates and have done nothing to diversify their economies away from oil (with the exception of the glitzy, debt-ridden failure that is Dubai) .
You ever seen the prima-donnas around the middle east countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
And they say the USA is full of lazy decadence... pfft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162110</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ethanol is BAD for engines!"<br>-- better let the Indy Car guys know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ethanol is BAD for engines !
" -- better let the Indy Car guys know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ethanol is BAD for engines!
"-- better let the Indy Car guys know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31195512</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>rgigger</author>
	<datestamp>1266512520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citation?  Seriously I would like to know one way or another.  I've heard both stories.  Never with a citation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation ?
Seriously I would like to know one way or another .
I 've heard both stories .
Never with a citation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation?
Seriously I would like to know one way or another.
I've heard both stories.
Never with a citation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162488</id>
	<title>Bio-fuels don't cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger."</p><p>The ugly truth is the birthrate causes hunger. What will be the cause of hunger if the population doubles? It always drives me crazy to hear all the finger pointing about what is causing hunger when it's politically incorrect to discuss the real cause. It's wonderful news about being able to hopefully use non food sources but we also need to face facts. The planet is running out of resources fast. The planet is likely to max out with around 9 billion people, better than 6 billion now. The number it can support is more like 3 to 4 billion, multiple studies place it in that range. We don't have enough food, water, and even base raw materials for the current population. Another one brought to light lately is a coming shortage of rare earth materials. There literally isn't enough available for everyone to have a cell phone and a computer. This is an important step in bio-fuels but blaming bio-fuels as the real source of hunger is unrealistic. Population control is a taboo subject worldwide, China is the only country to attempt it, but until we address it the rest is just delaying problems not solving them. Anyone that doubts what I'm saying research the subject. All studies point to a maximum sustainable population being passed in the early 80s. Essentially everyone added to that number will have to leave in the next 100 years, less actually. If the population hits 9 billion then 5 billion must leave. Picture 5 billion dying in the next 50 to a 100 years and see what we face. It's not off topic I'm simply contradicting a statement made concerning bio-fuels. Bio-fuels have been demonized as causing a problem when the obvious source of the problem can't be discussed. A good subject to discuss would be rare earths since most of the miracle technologies depend on them. Battery and hydrogen cars may not be possible as a replacement simply because there may not be enough rare earth materials to make them. A lot of rare earth materials used in things like cell phones are in small amounts, grams worth, but it still reflects a 1,000 tons or more a year. The small amounts are hard to recycle so how long until we run out? Many people on this forum may live to see cell phones once again become rare luxuries. Then what since we are slowly abandoning landlines? The biofuels have one massive advantage, alcohol can run even a basic engine that doesn't depend on rare elements. We may be back to lead acid batteries and internal combustion engines before the century is out. The future may in fact look more like the past than even the present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger .
" The ugly truth is the birthrate causes hunger .
What will be the cause of hunger if the population doubles ?
It always drives me crazy to hear all the finger pointing about what is causing hunger when it 's politically incorrect to discuss the real cause .
It 's wonderful news about being able to hopefully use non food sources but we also need to face facts .
The planet is running out of resources fast .
The planet is likely to max out with around 9 billion people , better than 6 billion now .
The number it can support is more like 3 to 4 billion , multiple studies place it in that range .
We do n't have enough food , water , and even base raw materials for the current population .
Another one brought to light lately is a coming shortage of rare earth materials .
There literally is n't enough available for everyone to have a cell phone and a computer .
This is an important step in bio-fuels but blaming bio-fuels as the real source of hunger is unrealistic .
Population control is a taboo subject worldwide , China is the only country to attempt it , but until we address it the rest is just delaying problems not solving them .
Anyone that doubts what I 'm saying research the subject .
All studies point to a maximum sustainable population being passed in the early 80s .
Essentially everyone added to that number will have to leave in the next 100 years , less actually .
If the population hits 9 billion then 5 billion must leave .
Picture 5 billion dying in the next 50 to a 100 years and see what we face .
It 's not off topic I 'm simply contradicting a statement made concerning bio-fuels .
Bio-fuels have been demonized as causing a problem when the obvious source of the problem ca n't be discussed .
A good subject to discuss would be rare earths since most of the miracle technologies depend on them .
Battery and hydrogen cars may not be possible as a replacement simply because there may not be enough rare earth materials to make them .
A lot of rare earth materials used in things like cell phones are in small amounts , grams worth , but it still reflects a 1,000 tons or more a year .
The small amounts are hard to recycle so how long until we run out ?
Many people on this forum may live to see cell phones once again become rare luxuries .
Then what since we are slowly abandoning landlines ?
The biofuels have one massive advantage , alcohol can run even a basic engine that does n't depend on rare elements .
We may be back to lead acid batteries and internal combustion engines before the century is out .
The future may in fact look more like the past than even the present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger.
"The ugly truth is the birthrate causes hunger.
What will be the cause of hunger if the population doubles?
It always drives me crazy to hear all the finger pointing about what is causing hunger when it's politically incorrect to discuss the real cause.
It's wonderful news about being able to hopefully use non food sources but we also need to face facts.
The planet is running out of resources fast.
The planet is likely to max out with around 9 billion people, better than 6 billion now.
The number it can support is more like 3 to 4 billion, multiple studies place it in that range.
We don't have enough food, water, and even base raw materials for the current population.
Another one brought to light lately is a coming shortage of rare earth materials.
There literally isn't enough available for everyone to have a cell phone and a computer.
This is an important step in bio-fuels but blaming bio-fuels as the real source of hunger is unrealistic.
Population control is a taboo subject worldwide, China is the only country to attempt it, but until we address it the rest is just delaying problems not solving them.
Anyone that doubts what I'm saying research the subject.
All studies point to a maximum sustainable population being passed in the early 80s.
Essentially everyone added to that number will have to leave in the next 100 years, less actually.
If the population hits 9 billion then 5 billion must leave.
Picture 5 billion dying in the next 50 to a 100 years and see what we face.
It's not off topic I'm simply contradicting a statement made concerning bio-fuels.
Bio-fuels have been demonized as causing a problem when the obvious source of the problem can't be discussed.
A good subject to discuss would be rare earths since most of the miracle technologies depend on them.
Battery and hydrogen cars may not be possible as a replacement simply because there may not be enough rare earth materials to make them.
A lot of rare earth materials used in things like cell phones are in small amounts, grams worth, but it still reflects a 1,000 tons or more a year.
The small amounts are hard to recycle so how long until we run out?
Many people on this forum may live to see cell phones once again become rare luxuries.
Then what since we are slowly abandoning landlines?
The biofuels have one massive advantage, alcohol can run even a basic engine that doesn't depend on rare elements.
We may be back to lead acid batteries and internal combustion engines before the century is out.
The future may in fact look more like the past than even the present.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169384</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sugar cane plantations are placed at least 2000 km from the Amazon forest:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goldemberg\_2008\_Brazil\_sugarcane\_regions\_1754-6834-1-6-1\_Fig\_1.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sugar cane plantations are placed at least 2000 km from the Amazon forest : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Goldemberg \ _2008 \ _Brazil \ _sugarcane \ _regions \ _1754-6834-1-6-1 \ _Fig \ _1.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sugar cane plantations are placed at least 2000 km from the Amazon forest:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goldemberg\_2008\_Brazil\_sugarcane\_regions\_1754-6834-1-6-1\_Fig\_1.jpg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162386</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>FishTankX</author>
	<datestamp>1266325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>usually to efficently leverage ethanol you have to have an engine designed for it. You can utilize VASTLY higher compression ratios with ethanol, because of it's massive antiknock rating. So you use a turbo, superhigh compression ratios, and boom, ethanol comes within 10-20\% as efficent as gasoline. This allows you to use a smaller engine, and hence less pumping losses, opening the door for ethanol engines to surpass gasoline engines in MPG efficency.

How about using ethanol in combination with gasoline to drastically boost normal fuel efficency by achieving higher compression ratios than normally possible?

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html</a> [mit.edu]

This MIT engine uses ethanol injection to keep an engine from knocking, delivering significantly higher compression ratios. About 1 gallon of ethanol to 20 galons of gasoline used. And the result? Engine output per liter jumped nearly 2x. Thus, overall fuel efficency gains were in the neighborhood of 20-30\%, and I doubt it'd be that much more expensive than a hybrid system. Combined with a hybrid system, this could allow stratospheric mileages easily toppling diesel in 1st place.

I think so far this is only on simulations, but if it were to break into the market, Ethanol could find it's home not only as an alternative fuel, but more importantly boosting the efficency of all of the other straight gasoline engines out there. All it takes is customized design for the fuel application.</htmltext>
<tokenext>usually to efficently leverage ethanol you have to have an engine designed for it .
You can utilize VASTLY higher compression ratios with ethanol , because of it 's massive antiknock rating .
So you use a turbo , superhigh compression ratios , and boom , ethanol comes within 10-20 \ % as efficent as gasoline .
This allows you to use a smaller engine , and hence less pumping losses , opening the door for ethanol engines to surpass gasoline engines in MPG efficency .
How about using ethanol in combination with gasoline to drastically boost normal fuel efficency by achieving higher compression ratios than normally possible ?
http : //web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html [ mit.edu ] This MIT engine uses ethanol injection to keep an engine from knocking , delivering significantly higher compression ratios .
About 1 gallon of ethanol to 20 galons of gasoline used .
And the result ?
Engine output per liter jumped nearly 2x .
Thus , overall fuel efficency gains were in the neighborhood of 20-30 \ % , and I doubt it 'd be that much more expensive than a hybrid system .
Combined with a hybrid system , this could allow stratospheric mileages easily toppling diesel in 1st place .
I think so far this is only on simulations , but if it were to break into the market , Ethanol could find it 's home not only as an alternative fuel , but more importantly boosting the efficency of all of the other straight gasoline engines out there .
All it takes is customized design for the fuel application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>usually to efficently leverage ethanol you have to have an engine designed for it.
You can utilize VASTLY higher compression ratios with ethanol, because of it's massive antiknock rating.
So you use a turbo, superhigh compression ratios, and boom, ethanol comes within 10-20\% as efficent as gasoline.
This allows you to use a smaller engine, and hence less pumping losses, opening the door for ethanol engines to surpass gasoline engines in MPG efficency.
How about using ethanol in combination with gasoline to drastically boost normal fuel efficency by achieving higher compression ratios than normally possible?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html [mit.edu]

This MIT engine uses ethanol injection to keep an engine from knocking, delivering significantly higher compression ratios.
About 1 gallon of ethanol to 20 galons of gasoline used.
And the result?
Engine output per liter jumped nearly 2x.
Thus, overall fuel efficency gains were in the neighborhood of 20-30\%, and I doubt it'd be that much more expensive than a hybrid system.
Combined with a hybrid system, this could allow stratospheric mileages easily toppling diesel in 1st place.
I think so far this is only on simulations, but if it were to break into the market, Ethanol could find it's home not only as an alternative fuel, but more importantly boosting the efficency of all of the other straight gasoline engines out there.
All it takes is customized design for the fuel application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>ThiagoHP</author>
	<datestamp>1266322620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it. Most of our car production comes with engines that can use any mixture of ethanol and gas, so you can choose the best one by cost or by ecofriendliness or any other reason. Even if the sugar price raised, we could see it as a good consequence: people would eat less sugar, less calories, maybe even eating more fruit!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Corn-based ethanol and the US tax in Brazilian ethanol is a something completely anti-free-market in the land that people love to quote the "invisible hand of the market" as the solution to almost anything. Go figure.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it .
Most of our car production comes with engines that can use any mixture of ethanol and gas , so you can choose the best one by cost or by ecofriendliness or any other reason .
Even if the sugar price raised , we could see it as a good consequence : people would eat less sugar , less calories , maybe even eating more fruit !
: - ) Corn-based ethanol and the US tax in Brazilian ethanol is a something completely anti-free-market in the land that people love to quote the " invisible hand of the market " as the solution to almost anything .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it.
Most of our car production comes with engines that can use any mixture of ethanol and gas, so you can choose the best one by cost or by ecofriendliness or any other reason.
Even if the sugar price raised, we could see it as a good consequence: people would eat less sugar, less calories, maybe even eating more fruit!
:-)

Corn-based ethanol and the US tax in Brazilian ethanol is a something completely anti-free-market in the land that people love to quote the "invisible hand of the market" as the solution to almost anything.
Go figure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</id>
	<title>Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the solution is to <b>reduce the number of cars</b> instead of trying to figure out a way to power them (in an unsustainable manner)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the solution is to reduce the number of cars instead of trying to figure out a way to power them ( in an unsustainable manner )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the solution is to reduce the number of cars instead of trying to figure out a way to power them (in an unsustainable manner)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162508</id>
	<title>Corn ethanol is wrong</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1266325920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet if you took any field currently used to grow corn for ethanol, you could find another crop to grow on that field for ethanol use such that it produced more energy at the other end (i.e. after you subtract the amount of energy required in the production process).</p><p>Switchgrass and other types of biofuel are being suppressed because the big bio-tech firms like Monsanto dont profit from those (seed sales, chemical sales etc)</p><p>Although to be fair I have no idea how hard it is to take factories that turn corn into biofuel and make them able to turn other things into biofuel as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet if you took any field currently used to grow corn for ethanol , you could find another crop to grow on that field for ethanol use such that it produced more energy at the other end ( i.e .
after you subtract the amount of energy required in the production process ) .Switchgrass and other types of biofuel are being suppressed because the big bio-tech firms like Monsanto dont profit from those ( seed sales , chemical sales etc ) Although to be fair I have no idea how hard it is to take factories that turn corn into biofuel and make them able to turn other things into biofuel as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet if you took any field currently used to grow corn for ethanol, you could find another crop to grow on that field for ethanol use such that it produced more energy at the other end (i.e.
after you subtract the amount of energy required in the production process).Switchgrass and other types of biofuel are being suppressed because the big bio-tech firms like Monsanto dont profit from those (seed sales, chemical sales etc)Although to be fair I have no idea how hard it is to take factories that turn corn into biofuel and make them able to turn other things into biofuel as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1266323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It helps that 90\% of Brazil is in sugarcane's growing area, and that when Brazil needs more farmland, they just burn down more forest. The Problem is that the majority of Brazil's soil is actually quite poor and loses it's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons (which is why they keep burning more and more forest). Unchecked, yes, Brazil will have no problem feeding their population... for now. In 20, 30, 40 years Brazil is going to start running out of forest to burn for more farmland and you will see prices begin to skyrocket when the soil becomes as fertile as north africa's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It helps that 90 \ % of Brazil is in sugarcane 's growing area , and that when Brazil needs more farmland , they just burn down more forest .
The Problem is that the majority of Brazil 's soil is actually quite poor and loses it 's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons ( which is why they keep burning more and more forest ) .
Unchecked , yes , Brazil will have no problem feeding their population... for now .
In 20 , 30 , 40 years Brazil is going to start running out of forest to burn for more farmland and you will see prices begin to skyrocket when the soil becomes as fertile as north africa 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It helps that 90\% of Brazil is in sugarcane's growing area, and that when Brazil needs more farmland, they just burn down more forest.
The Problem is that the majority of Brazil's soil is actually quite poor and loses it's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons (which is why they keep burning more and more forest).
Unchecked, yes, Brazil will have no problem feeding their population... for now.
In 20, 30, 40 years Brazil is going to start running out of forest to burn for more farmland and you will see prices begin to skyrocket when the soil becomes as fertile as north africa's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165778</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done?</p></div><p>Changing the laws of physics might help, ethanol has less potential energy compared to petrolium based fuels...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that has n't already been done ? Changing the laws of physics might help , ethanol has less potential energy compared to petrolium based fuels.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done?Changing the laws of physics might help, ethanol has less potential energy compared to petrolium based fuels...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162166</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1266324120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting people out of their cars more is a multidecadal process. The short-term price elasticity of demand for gasoline is very low.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting people out of their cars more is a multidecadal process .
The short-term price elasticity of demand for gasoline is very low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting people out of their cars more is a multidecadal process.
The short-term price elasticity of demand for gasoline is very low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166986</id>
	<title>Who says they didn't think of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who says they didn't think of this? The ones proposing it put forward ideas like: use scrubland. Use hemp or weeds. Use the cellulose in the unused parts of plantstock.</p><p>But, no, you HAVE to consider that they're idiots because that lets you be the smart one, therefore you can see through their "deception".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says they did n't think of this ?
The ones proposing it put forward ideas like : use scrubland .
Use hemp or weeds .
Use the cellulose in the unused parts of plantstock.But , no , you HAVE to consider that they 're idiots because that lets you be the smart one , therefore you can see through their " deception " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says they didn't think of this?
The ones proposing it put forward ideas like: use scrubland.
Use hemp or weeds.
Use the cellulose in the unused parts of plantstock.But, no, you HAVE to consider that they're idiots because that lets you be the smart one, therefore you can see through their "deception".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162912</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266328320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that flexibility is definitely non-free, to be able to handle a wide range of fuels, the engine can't be optimized for each, requiring more weight, less efficient usage of the fuel burned, etc.  I admit that having some flexibility is good, but it is foolish to try to permit everything from heating oil to ethanol to run in the same engine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that flexibility is definitely non-free , to be able to handle a wide range of fuels , the engine ca n't be optimized for each , requiring more weight , less efficient usage of the fuel burned , etc .
I admit that having some flexibility is good , but it is foolish to try to permit everything from heating oil to ethanol to run in the same engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that flexibility is definitely non-free, to be able to handle a wide range of fuels, the engine can't be optimized for each, requiring more weight, less efficient usage of the fuel burned, etc.
I admit that having some flexibility is good, but it is foolish to try to permit everything from heating oil to ethanol to run in the same engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1266325080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't forget to add in that you can probably multiply that by a factor of 10 or more if people were to go on a vegetarian diet. It would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diseases related to saturated fat and cholesterol, and not least animal suffering.</p><p>Yet for some reason the typical American diet consists of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world.Do n't forget to add in that you can probably multiply that by a factor of 10 or more if people were to go on a vegetarian diet .
It would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions , diseases related to saturated fat and cholesterol , and not least animal suffering.Yet for some reason the typical American diet consists of red meat and high fructose corn syrup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world.Don't forget to add in that you can probably multiply that by a factor of 10 or more if people were to go on a vegetarian diet.
It would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, diseases related to saturated fat and cholesterol, and not least animal suffering.Yet for some reason the typical American diet consists of red meat and high fructose corn syrup.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161760</id>
	<title>Chop Chop</title>
	<author>cormander</author>
	<datestamp>1266322020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>More reason to chop down more of the rain-forest. Instead of using food for bio-fuel (in turn starving people), we'll use trees for bio-fuel (in turn starving the environment, suffocating us).

So basically we'll go from wanting the mineral underneath the tree of the Na'vi village to wanting the tree itself. Not much of a change if you ask me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More reason to chop down more of the rain-forest .
Instead of using food for bio-fuel ( in turn starving people ) , we 'll use trees for bio-fuel ( in turn starving the environment , suffocating us ) .
So basically we 'll go from wanting the mineral underneath the tree of the Na'vi village to wanting the tree itself .
Not much of a change if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More reason to chop down more of the rain-forest.
Instead of using food for bio-fuel (in turn starving people), we'll use trees for bio-fuel (in turn starving the environment, suffocating us).
So basically we'll go from wanting the mineral underneath the tree of the Na'vi village to wanting the tree itself.
Not much of a change if you ask me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163434</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>Mikeytsi</author>
	<datestamp>1266332040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A catalytic converter has nothing to do with "knock" (pre-ignition) in an engine, it is an emissions component.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A catalytic converter has nothing to do with " knock " ( pre-ignition ) in an engine , it is an emissions component .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A catalytic converter has nothing to do with "knock" (pre-ignition) in an engine, it is an emissions component.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31170540</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoiled by low gas prices, yeah, while we are forced oversized, underpowered, inefficient engines, and screwed over by having diesel powered cars basically legislated away.  If most of my fellow Americans knew that the best American cars *aren't sold in America* maybe things would change.</p><p>Example: Ford Fusion Hybrid: overpriced, overcomplicated, in global comparisons not very efficient.  Give me a Ford Mondeo TDCI instead, it gets 50-60\% better economy out of a simpler design and has every feature the Fusion has.  Oh wait, I CAN'T HAVE ONE IN THE US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoiled by low gas prices , yeah , while we are forced oversized , underpowered , inefficient engines , and screwed over by having diesel powered cars basically legislated away .
If most of my fellow Americans knew that the best American cars * are n't sold in America * maybe things would change.Example : Ford Fusion Hybrid : overpriced , overcomplicated , in global comparisons not very efficient .
Give me a Ford Mondeo TDCI instead , it gets 50-60 \ % better economy out of a simpler design and has every feature the Fusion has .
Oh wait , I CA N'T HAVE ONE IN THE US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoiled by low gas prices, yeah, while we are forced oversized, underpowered, inefficient engines, and screwed over by having diesel powered cars basically legislated away.
If most of my fellow Americans knew that the best American cars *aren't sold in America* maybe things would change.Example: Ford Fusion Hybrid: overpriced, overcomplicated, in global comparisons not very efficient.
Give me a Ford Mondeo TDCI instead, it gets 50-60\% better economy out of a simpler design and has every feature the Fusion has.
Oh wait, I CAN'T HAVE ONE IN THE US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169270</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>Script Cat</author>
	<datestamp>1265040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My engine has 200000 miles on it with 10\% ethanol.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My engine has 200000 miles on it with 10 \ % ethanol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My engine has 200000 miles on it with 10\% ethanol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163818</id>
	<title>Re:Step in the Right Direction</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1266335160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.</p></div><p>I think the argument was that you needed to start getting the infrastructure in place to handle ethanol. Now you have a bunch of cars that can handle it, and service stations which can dish it out. So now if a private company has a process to make ethanol from scraps, they actually can get it to market without having to build an entire fuel infrastructure from scratch.</p><p>Bush even helped your fuel cells, if they happen to work with ethanol. There is absolutely no way fuel cells will ever get off the ground if the nation's gas stations are still only pumping diesel and gasoline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.I think the argument was that you needed to start getting the infrastructure in place to handle ethanol .
Now you have a bunch of cars that can handle it , and service stations which can dish it out .
So now if a private company has a process to make ethanol from scraps , they actually can get it to market without having to build an entire fuel infrastructure from scratch.Bush even helped your fuel cells , if they happen to work with ethanol .
There is absolutely no way fuel cells will ever get off the ground if the nation 's gas stations are still only pumping diesel and gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.I think the argument was that you needed to start getting the infrastructure in place to handle ethanol.
Now you have a bunch of cars that can handle it, and service stations which can dish it out.
So now if a private company has a process to make ethanol from scraps, they actually can get it to market without having to build an entire fuel infrastructure from scratch.Bush even helped your fuel cells, if they happen to work with ethanol.
There is absolutely no way fuel cells will ever get off the ground if the nation's gas stations are still only pumping diesel and gasoline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161868</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1266322740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who were most strongly pushing corn-based ethanol were corn farmers and farm-state politicians, for whom an increase in the price of corn was most definitely <i>not</i> an unintended consequence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who were most strongly pushing corn-based ethanol were corn farmers and farm-state politicians , for whom an increase in the price of corn was most definitely not an unintended consequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who were most strongly pushing corn-based ethanol were corn farmers and farm-state politicians, for whom an increase in the price of corn was most definitely not an unintended consequence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162286</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1266324780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On thy way brother Eli, and take ye horse and cart with ye!</htmltext>
<tokenext>On thy way brother Eli , and take ye horse and cart with ye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On thy way brother Eli, and take ye horse and cart with ye!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161958</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1266323160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you happen to miss how in the early 80's or so several popular products switched to using corn syrup as a sweetener?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you happen to miss how in the early 80 's or so several popular products switched to using corn syrup as a sweetener ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you happen to miss how in the early 80's or so several popular products switched to using corn syrup as a sweetener?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163962</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266336120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't reduce the number, reduce the size. Every time I see a road I see 90\% of the cars with one driver and three empty seats. Taking out the back seats would really help (Smart car: 3.3 litres / 100 km, compared to 5-6 litres (the hybrids) and 9 litres (normal cars)). Motorcycles are a heavy sacrifice on comfort and safety but they go down to 2 litres. Think of the traffic congestion problems that some healthy downsizing would also fix (no idling, even more fuel economy!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't reduce the number , reduce the size .
Every time I see a road I see 90 \ % of the cars with one driver and three empty seats .
Taking out the back seats would really help ( Smart car : 3.3 litres / 100 km , compared to 5-6 litres ( the hybrids ) and 9 litres ( normal cars ) ) .
Motorcycles are a heavy sacrifice on comfort and safety but they go down to 2 litres .
Think of the traffic congestion problems that some healthy downsizing would also fix ( no idling , even more fuel economy !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't reduce the number, reduce the size.
Every time I see a road I see 90\% of the cars with one driver and three empty seats.
Taking out the back seats would really help (Smart car: 3.3 litres / 100 km, compared to 5-6 litres (the hybrids) and 9 litres (normal cars)).
Motorcycles are a heavy sacrifice on comfort and safety but they go down to 2 litres.
Think of the traffic congestion problems that some healthy downsizing would also fix (no idling, even more fuel economy!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162384</id>
	<title>Almost there!</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1266325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me know when they can make fuel from cellulite, that should solve America's dependence on foreign fuel supplies for quite some time.... I'll do my part, converting potatoes into fuel one delicious french fry at a time <br> <br>Try New Texaco Green, It's People!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me know when they can make fuel from cellulite , that should solve America 's dependence on foreign fuel supplies for quite some time.... I 'll do my part , converting potatoes into fuel one delicious french fry at a time Try New Texaco Green , It 's People !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me know when they can make fuel from cellulite, that should solve America's dependence on foreign fuel supplies for quite some time.... I'll do my part, converting potatoes into fuel one delicious french fry at a time  Try New Texaco Green, It's People!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165276</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>cybernanga</author>
	<datestamp>1266344640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Poor market management, lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine, not biofuels. Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving. If the people hadn't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.</p><p>There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world. Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.</p></div><p>
The people did not let the farms fall into disrepair!</p><p>
The "revolution" was in 1980, and up until around 2000, 70\% of the countries land was owned by 4000 people in a country of 12-13 million. The "people" never had access to land. However, Zimbabwe was still able to feed it;s population and export a great deal of food. It was also the 3rd largest tobacco producer in the world.</p><p>
The food shortages were caused by President Mugabe and the ruling party ZANU PF, who allowed a violent programme of "land redistribution". The claimed to be taking the farms away from the 4000 minority and giving land to the "people" however in reality they kept the land to themselves, and as they are politicians and not farmers, hunger ensued.</p><p>
N.B. The 4000 people who owned 70\% of the land happened to be white in a country where the majority of people are black. The uneven land distribution is/was caused by the policies implemented by the previous colonial regime. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor market management , lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine , not biofuels .
Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa 's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving .
If the people had n't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world .
Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term , but will lead to greater investment and supply long term .
The people did not let the farms fall into disrepair !
The " revolution " was in 1980 , and up until around 2000 , 70 \ % of the countries land was owned by 4000 people in a country of 12-13 million .
The " people " never had access to land .
However , Zimbabwe was still able to feed it ; s population and export a great deal of food .
It was also the 3rd largest tobacco producer in the world .
The food shortages were caused by President Mugabe and the ruling party ZANU PF , who allowed a violent programme of " land redistribution " .
The claimed to be taking the farms away from the 4000 minority and giving land to the " people " however in reality they kept the land to themselves , and as they are politicians and not farmers , hunger ensued .
N.B. The 4000 people who owned 70 \ % of the land happened to be white in a country where the majority of people are black .
The uneven land distribution is/was caused by the policies implemented by the previous colonial regime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor market management, lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine, not biofuels.
Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving.
If the people hadn't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world.
Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.
The people did not let the farms fall into disrepair!
The "revolution" was in 1980, and up until around 2000, 70\% of the countries land was owned by 4000 people in a country of 12-13 million.
The "people" never had access to land.
However, Zimbabwe was still able to feed it;s population and export a great deal of food.
It was also the 3rd largest tobacco producer in the world.
The food shortages were caused by President Mugabe and the ruling party ZANU PF, who allowed a violent programme of "land redistribution".
The claimed to be taking the farms away from the 4000 minority and giving land to the "people" however in reality they kept the land to themselves, and as they are politicians and not farmers, hunger ensued.
N.B. The 4000 people who owned 70\% of the land happened to be white in a country where the majority of people are black.
The uneven land distribution is/was caused by the policies implemented by the previous colonial regime. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162216</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1266324360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's pure bullshit, you need to get out more.  Just as example, in my area buses only go on routes that include train station, to go more than five miles straight east or west using public transport is impossible, unless you count riding 30 miles in to large midwestern city, getting on another train, and riding 30 miles out again, and arriving at work in the afternoon in time to leave again.  gawd, "every city in the world is just like mine"....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's pure bullshit , you need to get out more .
Just as example , in my area buses only go on routes that include train station , to go more than five miles straight east or west using public transport is impossible , unless you count riding 30 miles in to large midwestern city , getting on another train , and riding 30 miles out again , and arriving at work in the afternoon in time to leave again .
gawd , " every city in the world is just like mine " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's pure bullshit, you need to get out more.
Just as example, in my area buses only go on routes that include train station, to go more than five miles straight east or west using public transport is impossible, unless you count riding 30 miles in to large midwestern city, getting on another train, and riding 30 miles out again, and arriving at work in the afternoon in time to leave again.
gawd, "every city in the world is just like mine"....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162374</id>
	<title>Biodiesel is better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's much easier to convert plant oil into diesel than it is to convert plant sugar into ethanol.</p><p>You can drop 100\% pure biodiesel into an engine with zero modifications(unless it's a very old engine with rubber seals, which can corrode), and it will run fine. Better than fine even; biodiesel lubricates better than oil-diesel, so engine wear actually decreases. (One caveat to that is temperature; if you live somewhere with very cold winters, you need to either install a fuel line heater, or run on only 5\%-15\% biodiesel, blended with oil-diesel, but this is a fixable issue.)</p><p>Additionally, oil crops like camelina or jatropha can be grown on marginal land not suitable for agriculture, or can be rotated with food crops like wheat, without sucking all the nitrogen, etc. out of the soil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's much easier to convert plant oil into diesel than it is to convert plant sugar into ethanol.You can drop 100 \ % pure biodiesel into an engine with zero modifications ( unless it 's a very old engine with rubber seals , which can corrode ) , and it will run fine .
Better than fine even ; biodiesel lubricates better than oil-diesel , so engine wear actually decreases .
( One caveat to that is temperature ; if you live somewhere with very cold winters , you need to either install a fuel line heater , or run on only 5 \ % -15 \ % biodiesel , blended with oil-diesel , but this is a fixable issue .
) Additionally , oil crops like camelina or jatropha can be grown on marginal land not suitable for agriculture , or can be rotated with food crops like wheat , without sucking all the nitrogen , etc .
out of the soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's much easier to convert plant oil into diesel than it is to convert plant sugar into ethanol.You can drop 100\% pure biodiesel into an engine with zero modifications(unless it's a very old engine with rubber seals, which can corrode), and it will run fine.
Better than fine even; biodiesel lubricates better than oil-diesel, so engine wear actually decreases.
(One caveat to that is temperature; if you live somewhere with very cold winters, you need to either install a fuel line heater, or run on only 5\%-15\% biodiesel, blended with oil-diesel, but this is a fixable issue.
)Additionally, oil crops like camelina or jatropha can be grown on marginal land not suitable for agriculture, or can be rotated with food crops like wheat, without sucking all the nitrogen, etc.
out of the soil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162364</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266325200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By that theory you should hate beef too, because it takes a lot more than a pound of corn to create a pound of beef. Furthermore the varieties of corn sold for feed are not normally sold for human consumption.</p><p>So by buying beef you are diverting corn production from human food into animal feed, which reduces the net food available.</p><p>In any case, environmentalists aren't the ones behind corn based ethanol.  It's agribusiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By that theory you should hate beef too , because it takes a lot more than a pound of corn to create a pound of beef .
Furthermore the varieties of corn sold for feed are not normally sold for human consumption.So by buying beef you are diverting corn production from human food into animal feed , which reduces the net food available.In any case , environmentalists are n't the ones behind corn based ethanol .
It 's agribusiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By that theory you should hate beef too, because it takes a lot more than a pound of corn to create a pound of beef.
Furthermore the varieties of corn sold for feed are not normally sold for human consumption.So by buying beef you are diverting corn production from human food into animal feed, which reduces the net food available.In any case, environmentalists aren't the ones behind corn based ethanol.
It's agribusiness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163302</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1266330840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What "Green Lords?"</p><p>The concept of powerful Peace-Mongers and Environmentalists is a fiction. Most of this regulation and "solutions" are lobbied for by big businesses. The Corn-as-fuel came from Monsanto and ADM. I haven't heard any Environmentalists or alternative energy advocates pushing for it -- but it's not really a 1-person movement with one defined "Green Lord."</p><p>I don't think you could find a "Chief Hippy."</p><p>Here is an article that kind of points out the Problem; to get Real headway on Cap-and-Trade, the farm lobbies had to be bought out with favors (so they'd keep their lobbyists at bay I suppose).<br><a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Pelosi-buys-off-agri-business-to-advance-climate-bill-7881538-49108077.html" title="washingtonexaminer.com">http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Pelosi-buys-off-agri-business-to-advance-climate-bill-7881538-49108077.html</a> [washingtonexaminer.com]<br>&gt;&gt; Lot's of screaming about this corruption -- but what REALLY could the Dems do? The reality is, Big Business runs government with money. And their Dollar invested in a politician returns a thousand dollars more for their own profits. We won't get RATIONAL decisions until we decide to fund elections or at least get better photos of these politicians when they are hitting on office staff.</p><p>To get Corn Syrup INTO soda, Monsanto got a subsidy, and to get this crap OUT of soda - they will get even MORE money.</p><p>So if you don't want corn used in fuel and would rather use pond scum -- then we will probably need a tax on the sun, which would of course, go to pay the government the "sun royalty fees" that Monsanto demands. It may cost more to NOT use inefficient corn.</p><p>And if you ever find this darn "Green Lord" -- please let me know where I can call him so that I and other people who care about breathing and nature, can become his evil minions and make millions on Carbon Credits.  -- But seriously, what is MOST annoying, is to have these debates swing on "Carbon Credits or Cap-AND-Trade have X and Y corruption." Well, right now we are mired in A through Z corruption and nobody is saying we need to abandon the entire capitalist system and Democracy -- OK, nobody who isn't protesting Obama's birth certificate is saying that. There are companies that will position themselves to make huge bucks when things change - but that's what savvy companies ALWAYS do. The status quo is already poisoning the planet and I don't see how it could be much more corrupt. If Al Gore becomes a billionaire -- well, there are already a few Trillionaires who are probably calling the Fed on speed dial right now; "OK, yeah, just print me up another batch of those notes--thanks, my valet will be by to pick it up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yeah, sure. Thanks Ben, same to you,... say hello to the missus for me, and I'll make sure you get that 0 interest loan on the house,.. no problems.... bye now."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What " Green Lords ?
" The concept of powerful Peace-Mongers and Environmentalists is a fiction .
Most of this regulation and " solutions " are lobbied for by big businesses .
The Corn-as-fuel came from Monsanto and ADM. I have n't heard any Environmentalists or alternative energy advocates pushing for it -- but it 's not really a 1-person movement with one defined " Green Lord .
" I do n't think you could find a " Chief Hippy .
" Here is an article that kind of points out the Problem ; to get Real headway on Cap-and-Trade , the farm lobbies had to be bought out with favors ( so they 'd keep their lobbyists at bay I suppose ) .http : //www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Pelosi-buys-off-agri-business-to-advance-climate-bill-7881538-49108077.html [ washingtonexaminer.com ] &gt; &gt; Lot 's of screaming about this corruption -- but what REALLY could the Dems do ?
The reality is , Big Business runs government with money .
And their Dollar invested in a politician returns a thousand dollars more for their own profits .
We wo n't get RATIONAL decisions until we decide to fund elections or at least get better photos of these politicians when they are hitting on office staff.To get Corn Syrup INTO soda , Monsanto got a subsidy , and to get this crap OUT of soda - they will get even MORE money.So if you do n't want corn used in fuel and would rather use pond scum -- then we will probably need a tax on the sun , which would of course , go to pay the government the " sun royalty fees " that Monsanto demands .
It may cost more to NOT use inefficient corn.And if you ever find this darn " Green Lord " -- please let me know where I can call him so that I and other people who care about breathing and nature , can become his evil minions and make millions on Carbon Credits .
-- But seriously , what is MOST annoying , is to have these debates swing on " Carbon Credits or Cap-AND-Trade have X and Y corruption .
" Well , right now we are mired in A through Z corruption and nobody is saying we need to abandon the entire capitalist system and Democracy -- OK , nobody who is n't protesting Obama 's birth certificate is saying that .
There are companies that will position themselves to make huge bucks when things change - but that 's what savvy companies ALWAYS do .
The status quo is already poisoning the planet and I do n't see how it could be much more corrupt .
If Al Gore becomes a billionaire -- well , there are already a few Trillionaires who are probably calling the Fed on speed dial right now ; " OK , yeah , just print me up another batch of those notes--thanks , my valet will be by to pick it up ... yeah , sure .
Thanks Ben , same to you,... say hello to the missus for me , and I 'll make sure you get that 0 interest loan on the house,.. no problems.... bye now .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What "Green Lords?
"The concept of powerful Peace-Mongers and Environmentalists is a fiction.
Most of this regulation and "solutions" are lobbied for by big businesses.
The Corn-as-fuel came from Monsanto and ADM. I haven't heard any Environmentalists or alternative energy advocates pushing for it -- but it's not really a 1-person movement with one defined "Green Lord.
"I don't think you could find a "Chief Hippy.
"Here is an article that kind of points out the Problem; to get Real headway on Cap-and-Trade, the farm lobbies had to be bought out with favors (so they'd keep their lobbyists at bay I suppose).http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Pelosi-buys-off-agri-business-to-advance-climate-bill-7881538-49108077.html [washingtonexaminer.com]&gt;&gt; Lot's of screaming about this corruption -- but what REALLY could the Dems do?
The reality is, Big Business runs government with money.
And their Dollar invested in a politician returns a thousand dollars more for their own profits.
We won't get RATIONAL decisions until we decide to fund elections or at least get better photos of these politicians when they are hitting on office staff.To get Corn Syrup INTO soda, Monsanto got a subsidy, and to get this crap OUT of soda - they will get even MORE money.So if you don't want corn used in fuel and would rather use pond scum -- then we will probably need a tax on the sun, which would of course, go to pay the government the "sun royalty fees" that Monsanto demands.
It may cost more to NOT use inefficient corn.And if you ever find this darn "Green Lord" -- please let me know where I can call him so that I and other people who care about breathing and nature, can become his evil minions and make millions on Carbon Credits.
-- But seriously, what is MOST annoying, is to have these debates swing on "Carbon Credits or Cap-AND-Trade have X and Y corruption.
" Well, right now we are mired in A through Z corruption and nobody is saying we need to abandon the entire capitalist system and Democracy -- OK, nobody who isn't protesting Obama's birth certificate is saying that.
There are companies that will position themselves to make huge bucks when things change - but that's what savvy companies ALWAYS do.
The status quo is already poisoning the planet and I don't see how it could be much more corrupt.
If Al Gore becomes a billionaire -- well, there are already a few Trillionaires who are probably calling the Fed on speed dial right now; "OK, yeah, just print me up another batch of those notes--thanks, my valet will be by to pick it up ... yeah, sure.
Thanks Ben, same to you,... say hello to the missus for me, and I'll make sure you get that 0 interest loan on the house,.. no problems.... bye now.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167738</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1265032440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Come to Europe. Then you'll pay &euro;1.4 for a litre and live happy ever-after. Or, in non-standard units, roughly USD 7.3 for gallon.
</p><p>
Quite an incentive to go green, isn't it?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come to Europe .
Then you 'll pay    1.4 for a litre and live happy ever-after .
Or , in non-standard units , roughly USD 7.3 for gallon .
Quite an incentive to go green , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Come to Europe.
Then you'll pay €1.4 for a litre and live happy ever-after.
Or, in non-standard units, roughly USD 7.3 for gallon.
Quite an incentive to go green, isn't it?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168476</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop spreading misinformation. Have you visited anything that you're talking about ? I'm from Brazil, currently live in Brazil, but lived 8 years in the US, and have seen all the lies that propagate in the US about Brazil.</p><p>Brazil has lots and lots and lots and lots of unused farm land that doesn't require any burning down of the rain forest or any other dense forest that might be an effective oxygen producer.</p><p>The only reason we're seeing burning down of the amazon rain forest is pure greed.</p><p>There are HUGE plantations that are producing for 100+ yrs.</p><p>There is a lot of soil in Brazil that needs PH correction, with limestone based fertilizers, but that can be done forever.</p><p>Brazil is the largest food producer overall of the world. We export soybeans, beans, orange, coffee, beef, pork, chicken, banana, all of that in huge quantities.</p><p>The main reason this misinformation is spread is just because of sugar cane based alcohol is so much more economical than the US/EU alcohol projects that it would jeopardize the current subsidy model in the US/EU if we were allowed to compete without surcharges that are being charged nowadays.</p><p>The US/EU agricultural lobby uses those lies to try to maintain their subsidies and surcharges on alcohol imports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop spreading misinformation .
Have you visited anything that you 're talking about ?
I 'm from Brazil , currently live in Brazil , but lived 8 years in the US , and have seen all the lies that propagate in the US about Brazil.Brazil has lots and lots and lots and lots of unused farm land that does n't require any burning down of the rain forest or any other dense forest that might be an effective oxygen producer.The only reason we 're seeing burning down of the amazon rain forest is pure greed.There are HUGE plantations that are producing for 100 + yrs.There is a lot of soil in Brazil that needs PH correction , with limestone based fertilizers , but that can be done forever.Brazil is the largest food producer overall of the world .
We export soybeans , beans , orange , coffee , beef , pork , chicken , banana , all of that in huge quantities.The main reason this misinformation is spread is just because of sugar cane based alcohol is so much more economical than the US/EU alcohol projects that it would jeopardize the current subsidy model in the US/EU if we were allowed to compete without surcharges that are being charged nowadays.The US/EU agricultural lobby uses those lies to try to maintain their subsidies and surcharges on alcohol imports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop spreading misinformation.
Have you visited anything that you're talking about ?
I'm from Brazil, currently live in Brazil, but lived 8 years in the US, and have seen all the lies that propagate in the US about Brazil.Brazil has lots and lots and lots and lots of unused farm land that doesn't require any burning down of the rain forest or any other dense forest that might be an effective oxygen producer.The only reason we're seeing burning down of the amazon rain forest is pure greed.There are HUGE plantations that are producing for 100+ yrs.There is a lot of soil in Brazil that needs PH correction, with limestone based fertilizers, but that can be done forever.Brazil is the largest food producer overall of the world.
We export soybeans, beans, orange, coffee, beef, pork, chicken, banana, all of that in huge quantities.The main reason this misinformation is spread is just because of sugar cane based alcohol is so much more economical than the US/EU alcohol projects that it would jeopardize the current subsidy model in the US/EU if we were allowed to compete without surcharges that are being charged nowadays.The US/EU agricultural lobby uses those lies to try to maintain their subsidies and surcharges on alcohol imports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163764</id>
	<title>Re:Step in the Right Direction</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1266334740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This a positive step in the right direction. I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.</p></div><p>Yeah, it's a shame he never mentioned switchgrass.</p><p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Business/story?id=1566784" title="go.com">Oh, wait....</a> [go.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This a positive step in the right direction .
I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.Yeah , it 's a shame he never mentioned switchgrass.Oh , wait.... [ go.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This a positive step in the right direction.
I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.Yeah, it's a shame he never mentioned switchgrass.Oh, wait.... [go.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165830</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>riT-k0MA</author>
	<datestamp>1266348960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>($2.96/gallon||R6.00/litre)? I'd love to pay such low prices!</htmltext>
<tokenext>( $ 2.96/gallon | | R6.00/litre ) ?
I 'd love to pay such low prices !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>($2.96/gallon||R6.00/litre)?
I'd love to pay such low prices!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</id>
	<title>Biofuels</title>
	<author>Chris Lawrence</author>
	<datestamp>1266322140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost.  It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability.  Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel. And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.  The US has 250 million cars.  There's not enough land left in the world to clear to make enough biofuels for that.</p><p><a href="http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/biofuels.html" title="selfdestru...stards.com">http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/biofuels.html</a> [selfdestru...stards.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main issue with biofuels is n't really food or cost .
It 's about land use , energy efficiency and sustainability .
Brazil is usually given as a great example , but they have only 8 million cars , which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel , the rest is still gasoline or diesel .
And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world .
The US has 250 million cars .
There 's not enough land left in the world to clear to make enough biofuels for that.http : //www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/biofuels.html [ selfdestru...stards.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost.
It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability.
Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel.
And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.
The US has 250 million cars.
There's not enough land left in the world to clear to make enough biofuels for that.http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/biofuels.html [selfdestru...stards.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169242</id>
	<title>Food shortage thoery is flawed.</title>
	<author>WebCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265040180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Biofuels need not be made of corn, and no environmentalist has suggested this is the best alternative.  The choice is chiefly a political one, meant to prop up corn demand because the US produces an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE GLUT of corn FAR exceeding practical demand.  It is a market so distorted by political interference it bears no resemblance to a free market and as such decisions are made in absence of economic soundness.  These studies making out biofuel to be dangerous to our food supply make assumptions that would never happen in a free market--that biofuels would continue to make use of human-grade foodstock like corn, that such fuels would replace a sizeable amount of conventional fuel demand, that harvesting biofuel feedstock would not become more efficient, ignores the possibility of using waste food prodcuts and so on.</p><p>Americans scarcely eat HALF of the edible food crops grown for their consumption.  That INCLUDES crops fed to animals that are subsequently turned into meat.  The rest goes to waste--often not even into compost to recycle into fields.  It would break your heart to see how much food goes into landfills--buried in anaerobic conditions where it not only doesn't nourish fields for future crops it doesn't even properly decompose for a decade or two!</p><p>Make no mistake, there is an AMPLE supply of feedstock for biofuels, and it is well worth the investment in research like making cellulosic ethanol and biodiesels made from waste oils cost-effective as a means of recovering this massive waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biofuels need not be made of corn , and no environmentalist has suggested this is the best alternative .
The choice is chiefly a political one , meant to prop up corn demand because the US produces an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE GLUT of corn FAR exceeding practical demand .
It is a market so distorted by political interference it bears no resemblance to a free market and as such decisions are made in absence of economic soundness .
These studies making out biofuel to be dangerous to our food supply make assumptions that would never happen in a free market--that biofuels would continue to make use of human-grade foodstock like corn , that such fuels would replace a sizeable amount of conventional fuel demand , that harvesting biofuel feedstock would not become more efficient , ignores the possibility of using waste food prodcuts and so on.Americans scarcely eat HALF of the edible food crops grown for their consumption .
That INCLUDES crops fed to animals that are subsequently turned into meat .
The rest goes to waste--often not even into compost to recycle into fields .
It would break your heart to see how much food goes into landfills--buried in anaerobic conditions where it not only does n't nourish fields for future crops it does n't even properly decompose for a decade or two ! Make no mistake , there is an AMPLE supply of feedstock for biofuels , and it is well worth the investment in research like making cellulosic ethanol and biodiesels made from waste oils cost-effective as a means of recovering this massive waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biofuels need not be made of corn, and no environmentalist has suggested this is the best alternative.
The choice is chiefly a political one, meant to prop up corn demand because the US produces an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE GLUT of corn FAR exceeding practical demand.
It is a market so distorted by political interference it bears no resemblance to a free market and as such decisions are made in absence of economic soundness.
These studies making out biofuel to be dangerous to our food supply make assumptions that would never happen in a free market--that biofuels would continue to make use of human-grade foodstock like corn, that such fuels would replace a sizeable amount of conventional fuel demand, that harvesting biofuel feedstock would not become more efficient, ignores the possibility of using waste food prodcuts and so on.Americans scarcely eat HALF of the edible food crops grown for their consumption.
That INCLUDES crops fed to animals that are subsequently turned into meat.
The rest goes to waste--often not even into compost to recycle into fields.
It would break your heart to see how much food goes into landfills--buried in anaerobic conditions where it not only doesn't nourish fields for future crops it doesn't even properly decompose for a decade or two!Make no mistake, there is an AMPLE supply of feedstock for biofuels, and it is well worth the investment in research like making cellulosic ethanol and biodiesels made from waste oils cost-effective as a means of recovering this massive waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166698</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1265020380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a nice one. Blame biofuels, not meat production for deforestation...</p><p>Why don't you eat another beef burger while you're at it?</p><p>I am not vegetarian - I love meat too much, but we gotta face the facts here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a nice one .
Blame biofuels , not meat production for deforestation...Why do n't you eat another beef burger while you 're at it ? I am not vegetarian - I love meat too much , but we got ta face the facts here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a nice one.
Blame biofuels, not meat production for deforestation...Why don't you eat another beef burger while you're at it?I am not vegetarian - I love meat too much, but we gotta face the facts here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162258</id>
	<title>Re:Chop Chop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266324660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let me save everyone time and effort: unless we develop fusion-based power production, there isn't going to be one.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Nonsense! What do you call fission-based power production?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me save everyone time and effort : unless we develop fusion-based power production , there is n't going to be one .
Nonsense ! What do you call fission-based power production ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me save everyone time and effort: unless we develop fusion-based power production, there isn't going to be one.
Nonsense! What do you call fission-based power production?
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167960</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  Corn was selected because it was the only major American crop on the list of the best ethanol producing materials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Corn was selected because it was the only major American crop on the list of the best ethanol producing materials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Corn was selected because it was the only major American crop on the list of the best ethanol producing materials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162548</id>
	<title>Market Fail</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1266326100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The market cannot answer your question.</p><p>Did you ask, "How can I increase short term profit for my shareholder?"</p><p>If you asked a different question, please try again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The market can not answer your question.Did you ask , " How can I increase short term profit for my shareholder ?
" If you asked a different question , please try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market cannot answer your question.Did you ask, "How can I increase short term profit for my shareholder?
"If you asked a different question, please try again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162270</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Adriax</author>
	<datestamp>1266324720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you live in an area where 1/3rd of the people live 5+ miles from city limits.<br>Or an area where it gets -10 before windchill during the winter on a warm day, and becomes quite deadly for anyone not young and healthy to walk more than a couple blocks.<br>Ooo, or how about the general populace is so ignorant and deserving of the title redneck that a handful of people end up in the ER every month from beer bottle concussions thrown from muddy trucks doing anything from 30-75mph in town, just because they were walking or riding a bike.</p><p>Or gee, maybe you're like me and live in an area that's all of the above.<br>Try living somewhere that doesn't have a bus stop every 2 blocks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you live in an area where 1/3rd of the people live 5 + miles from city limits.Or an area where it gets -10 before windchill during the winter on a warm day , and becomes quite deadly for anyone not young and healthy to walk more than a couple blocks.Ooo , or how about the general populace is so ignorant and deserving of the title redneck that a handful of people end up in the ER every month from beer bottle concussions thrown from muddy trucks doing anything from 30-75mph in town , just because they were walking or riding a bike.Or gee , maybe you 're like me and live in an area that 's all of the above.Try living somewhere that does n't have a bus stop every 2 blocks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you live in an area where 1/3rd of the people live 5+ miles from city limits.Or an area where it gets -10 before windchill during the winter on a warm day, and becomes quite deadly for anyone not young and healthy to walk more than a couple blocks.Ooo, or how about the general populace is so ignorant and deserving of the title redneck that a handful of people end up in the ER every month from beer bottle concussions thrown from muddy trucks doing anything from 30-75mph in town, just because they were walking or riding a bike.Or gee, maybe you're like me and live in an area that's all of the above.Try living somewhere that doesn't have a bus stop every 2 blocks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162248</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>mrthehud</author>
	<datestamp>1266324540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problems of food based biofuels creating hunger are still very much present in inedible source biofuels: The 'fuel crops' will be grown in place of food crops because fuel is vastly more profitable than. Whether or not the crop could be eaten as well is completely beside the point.

I don't think they've 'figured this out' just yet.

Find a crop to grow on the other two thirds of the planets surface, however, and we might be all set (even if we have to give up seafood to have it.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems of food based biofuels creating hunger are still very much present in inedible source biofuels : The 'fuel crops ' will be grown in place of food crops because fuel is vastly more profitable than .
Whether or not the crop could be eaten as well is completely beside the point .
I do n't think they 've 'figured this out ' just yet .
Find a crop to grow on the other two thirds of the planets surface , however , and we might be all set ( even if we have to give up seafood to have it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems of food based biofuels creating hunger are still very much present in inedible source biofuels: The 'fuel crops' will be grown in place of food crops because fuel is vastly more profitable than.
Whether or not the crop could be eaten as well is completely beside the point.
I don't think they've 'figured this out' just yet.
Find a crop to grow on the other two thirds of the planets surface, however, and we might be all set (even if we have to give up seafood to have it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162808</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because that is cheap.</p><p>Check the price of a good meat replacement like quorn vs the the price of ground beef.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that is cheap.Check the price of a good meat replacement like quorn vs the the price of ground beef .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that is cheap.Check the price of a good meat replacement like quorn vs the the price of ground beef.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165298</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1266344760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor  in the absence of government interference  is vast.</p></div><p>So that would explain why famine is a huge problem within Somalia, where there is no government interference (since there's no functioning government) in the employment of labor nor in the pricing of food, clothing, and housing, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of capitalists that could feed , clothe , and house people well for the price of their labor in the absence of government interference is vast.So that would explain why famine is a huge problem within Somalia , where there is no government interference ( since there 's no functioning government ) in the employment of labor nor in the pricing of food , clothing , and housing , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor  in the absence of government interference  is vast.So that would explain why famine is a huge problem within Somalia, where there is no government interference (since there's no functioning government) in the employment of labor nor in the pricing of food, clothing, and housing, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164206</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Punctuated\_Equilibri</author>
	<datestamp>1266337560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh come on, farm corporations?  It was welfare for farmers,  but democrats are equally enthusiastic as republicans, and farmers are individuals and families.  You can't frickin blame everything on corporations, what's next, the young are being exploited by corporations of the elderly and the schools suck because of evil educational corporations?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on , farm corporations ?
It was welfare for farmers , but democrats are equally enthusiastic as republicans , and farmers are individuals and families .
You ca n't frickin blame everything on corporations , what 's next , the young are being exploited by corporations of the elderly and the schools suck because of evil educational corporations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on, farm corporations?
It was welfare for farmers,  but democrats are equally enthusiastic as republicans, and farmers are individuals and families.
You can't frickin blame everything on corporations, what's next, the young are being exploited by corporations of the elderly and the schools suck because of evil educational corporations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164296</id>
	<title>Gasification and other Enginuity</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266338160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here we go again, biofuels and all. First off, lets talk about enzymes. People say that cellulose is hard to break down. Here's how to break it down, much more efficiently and cheaply than enzymes: 500 degrees C. The fact is that gasification and thermochemical processing will be more efficient. Many coal and biomass to liquids processes are 85\% percent plus energy efficient. Ethanol fermentation is less (appears 75\% biomass to ethanol). Instead, let's go for gasification and produce biogasoline, a real fuel with a proven track record. Where does the heat from gasification come from? The sun. We will use big, cheap arrays of mirrors to heat up containers (made of iron?) of the biomass, what ever it may be. Then we remove crud like sulfur and nitrogen, and pass it over a series of catalysts the make gasoline. This happens in one huge desert solar power plant. Of course, as Elon Musk said, it would be better just to burn all that biomass in a big combined cycle power plant and charge up our electric cars.



The thing about biofuels is that they are ridiculously inefficient. Even algae, the most efficient biofuel, is only \%6-7 efficient solar to fuel conversion, and most are less than \%1. A much better way to convert solar energy to fuel is with Sandia's sunshine to petrol program. We could be looking at much higher efficiency (\%40+). They react a metal with water to create metal oxide and hydrogen, and then heat up the metal oxide to regenerate the metal. The hydrogen then is reacted with CO2 to produce gasoline. About 1 gallon of water is consumed per gallon of gasoline, and they could operate on waste water anyway. This is real, drop in replacement gasoline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go again , biofuels and all .
First off , lets talk about enzymes .
People say that cellulose is hard to break down .
Here 's how to break it down , much more efficiently and cheaply than enzymes : 500 degrees C. The fact is that gasification and thermochemical processing will be more efficient .
Many coal and biomass to liquids processes are 85 \ % percent plus energy efficient .
Ethanol fermentation is less ( appears 75 \ % biomass to ethanol ) .
Instead , let 's go for gasification and produce biogasoline , a real fuel with a proven track record .
Where does the heat from gasification come from ?
The sun .
We will use big , cheap arrays of mirrors to heat up containers ( made of iron ?
) of the biomass , what ever it may be .
Then we remove crud like sulfur and nitrogen , and pass it over a series of catalysts the make gasoline .
This happens in one huge desert solar power plant .
Of course , as Elon Musk said , it would be better just to burn all that biomass in a big combined cycle power plant and charge up our electric cars .
The thing about biofuels is that they are ridiculously inefficient .
Even algae , the most efficient biofuel , is only \ % 6-7 efficient solar to fuel conversion , and most are less than \ % 1 .
A much better way to convert solar energy to fuel is with Sandia 's sunshine to petrol program .
We could be looking at much higher efficiency ( \ % 40 + ) .
They react a metal with water to create metal oxide and hydrogen , and then heat up the metal oxide to regenerate the metal .
The hydrogen then is reacted with CO2 to produce gasoline .
About 1 gallon of water is consumed per gallon of gasoline , and they could operate on waste water anyway .
This is real , drop in replacement gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go again, biofuels and all.
First off, lets talk about enzymes.
People say that cellulose is hard to break down.
Here's how to break it down, much more efficiently and cheaply than enzymes: 500 degrees C. The fact is that gasification and thermochemical processing will be more efficient.
Many coal and biomass to liquids processes are 85\% percent plus energy efficient.
Ethanol fermentation is less (appears 75\% biomass to ethanol).
Instead, let's go for gasification and produce biogasoline, a real fuel with a proven track record.
Where does the heat from gasification come from?
The sun.
We will use big, cheap arrays of mirrors to heat up containers (made of iron?
) of the biomass, what ever it may be.
Then we remove crud like sulfur and nitrogen, and pass it over a series of catalysts the make gasoline.
This happens in one huge desert solar power plant.
Of course, as Elon Musk said, it would be better just to burn all that biomass in a big combined cycle power plant and charge up our electric cars.
The thing about biofuels is that they are ridiculously inefficient.
Even algae, the most efficient biofuel, is only \%6-7 efficient solar to fuel conversion, and most are less than \%1.
A much better way to convert solar energy to fuel is with Sandia's sunshine to petrol program.
We could be looking at much higher efficiency (\%40+).
They react a metal with water to create metal oxide and hydrogen, and then heat up the metal oxide to regenerate the metal.
The hydrogen then is reacted with CO2 to produce gasoline.
About 1 gallon of water is consumed per gallon of gasoline, and they could operate on waste water anyway.
This is real, drop in replacement gasoline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162382</id>
	<title>biogasoline would be better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than fermenting into ethanol, the sugar stream could also be converted into biogasoline down the road.  There are lots of initiatives working towards getting bacteria/algae/fungus to get to this end.</p><p>Biogasoline<br>- Would work with existing distribution infrastructure<br>- Would work with vast majority of existing fleet<br>- Is more energy dense than ethanol, making it more efficient for a vehicle solution</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than fermenting into ethanol , the sugar stream could also be converted into biogasoline down the road .
There are lots of initiatives working towards getting bacteria/algae/fungus to get to this end.Biogasoline- Would work with existing distribution infrastructure- Would work with vast majority of existing fleet- Is more energy dense than ethanol , making it more efficient for a vehicle solution</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than fermenting into ethanol, the sugar stream could also be converted into biogasoline down the road.
There are lots of initiatives working towards getting bacteria/algae/fungus to get to this end.Biogasoline- Would work with existing distribution infrastructure- Would work with vast majority of existing fleet- Is more energy dense than ethanol, making it more efficient for a vehicle solution</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163796</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266334980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person's labor. The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor in the absence of government interference is vast.</p></div><p>Ah yes, the old "we'd live in a capitalist utopia if it wasn't for those meddling governments" argument -- the same governments that make it possible for capitalists to have a market in the first place, literate workers to produce the goods, the transport systems to move them, and so on. Capitalism is a superb <i>market</i> system, but it doesn't do crap else. That's why we <i>have</i> governments. The usual counterargument, that free enterprise would perform the services currently performed by government, has also been long-discredited. We tried that. We ended up with debtors' prisons and company towns with workers paid in scrip in near-serfdom.</p><p>The cost of producing, processing, transporting, and distributing food is worth well more than the value of currently starving peoples' labor. How do I know? Easy -- if it weren't, then capitalists would be, at the very least, trading food for ultra-cheap labor. If that labor was <i>significantly</i> more valuable than food, capitalists would be using bribery and, when necessary, private military companies to topple oppressive governments and establish order. After all, they use private armies to keep order in more than a few oil producing regions in Africa.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me, a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor, and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else.</p></div><p>Typical free-market extremist equivocation. Your "moral obligation", as you describe it, isn't a moral obligation at all; it's simply your desire to serve yourself to the exclusion of all else, a complete inversion of morality. What you probably don't realize is that by surrendering your moral obligations, you are effectively in breach of the social contract, which relieves anyone else of any moral obligation not to simply overcome you with superior -- and, if necessary, lethal -- force to seize your property. But I suspect that someone as ethically bankrupt and short-sighted as yourself is incapable of seeing that there are no "natural rights", and that all rights are the creation of human beings by common consent. Outside of that framework, which involves -- ironically enough -- the purchase of rights with the coin of moral obligation, you're just another resource to be harvested.</p><p>Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world? I only ask because I've never seen a loud-mouthed, scrawny Ayn Rand disciple who would last a full minute in an amoral world governed by absolute self-interest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person 's labor .
The number of capitalists that could feed , clothe , and house people well for the price of their labor in the absence of government interference is vast.Ah yes , the old " we 'd live in a capitalist utopia if it was n't for those meddling governments " argument -- the same governments that make it possible for capitalists to have a market in the first place , literate workers to produce the goods , the transport systems to move them , and so on .
Capitalism is a superb market system , but it does n't do crap else .
That 's why we have governments .
The usual counterargument , that free enterprise would perform the services currently performed by government , has also been long-discredited .
We tried that .
We ended up with debtors ' prisons and company towns with workers paid in scrip in near-serfdom.The cost of producing , processing , transporting , and distributing food is worth well more than the value of currently starving peoples ' labor .
How do I know ?
Easy -- if it were n't , then capitalists would be , at the very least , trading food for ultra-cheap labor .
If that labor was significantly more valuable than food , capitalists would be using bribery and , when necessary , private military companies to topple oppressive governments and establish order .
After all , they use private armies to keep order in more than a few oil producing regions in Africa.I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me , a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor , and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else.Typical free-market extremist equivocation .
Your " moral obligation " , as you describe it , is n't a moral obligation at all ; it 's simply your desire to serve yourself to the exclusion of all else , a complete inversion of morality .
What you probably do n't realize is that by surrendering your moral obligations , you are effectively in breach of the social contract , which relieves anyone else of any moral obligation not to simply overcome you with superior -- and , if necessary , lethal -- force to seize your property .
But I suspect that someone as ethically bankrupt and short-sighted as yourself is incapable of seeing that there are no " natural rights " , and that all rights are the creation of human beings by common consent .
Outside of that framework , which involves -- ironically enough -- the purchase of rights with the coin of moral obligation , you 're just another resource to be harvested.Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world ?
I only ask because I 've never seen a loud-mouthed , scrawny Ayn Rand disciple who would last a full minute in an amoral world governed by absolute self-interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person's labor.
The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor in the absence of government interference is vast.Ah yes, the old "we'd live in a capitalist utopia if it wasn't for those meddling governments" argument -- the same governments that make it possible for capitalists to have a market in the first place, literate workers to produce the goods, the transport systems to move them, and so on.
Capitalism is a superb market system, but it doesn't do crap else.
That's why we have governments.
The usual counterargument, that free enterprise would perform the services currently performed by government, has also been long-discredited.
We tried that.
We ended up with debtors' prisons and company towns with workers paid in scrip in near-serfdom.The cost of producing, processing, transporting, and distributing food is worth well more than the value of currently starving peoples' labor.
How do I know?
Easy -- if it weren't, then capitalists would be, at the very least, trading food for ultra-cheap labor.
If that labor was significantly more valuable than food, capitalists would be using bribery and, when necessary, private military companies to topple oppressive governments and establish order.
After all, they use private armies to keep order in more than a few oil producing regions in Africa.I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me, a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor, and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else.Typical free-market extremist equivocation.
Your "moral obligation", as you describe it, isn't a moral obligation at all; it's simply your desire to serve yourself to the exclusion of all else, a complete inversion of morality.
What you probably don't realize is that by surrendering your moral obligations, you are effectively in breach of the social contract, which relieves anyone else of any moral obligation not to simply overcome you with superior -- and, if necessary, lethal -- force to seize your property.
But I suspect that someone as ethically bankrupt and short-sighted as yourself is incapable of seeing that there are no "natural rights", and that all rights are the creation of human beings by common consent.
Outside of that framework, which involves -- ironically enough -- the purchase of rights with the coin of moral obligation, you're just another resource to be harvested.Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world?
I only ask because I've never seen a loud-mouthed, scrawny Ayn Rand disciple who would last a full minute in an amoral world governed by absolute self-interest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162260</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>Krannert IT</author>
	<datestamp>1266324660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I read an interesting article about how ethanol really can be similar to gas, parituclar in an engine designed for gas. <a href="http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/papers/fuel.htm" title="radford.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/papers/fuel.htm</a> [radford.edu]  </p><p>It seems as if ethanol is actually a good fuel when an engine is tuned properly. It is used for racing already, most motorsports use pure ethanol as it has a higher octane rating which allows the production of more horsepower. If you tune and gear an engine properly you should easily be able to get similar mileage. The problem with flex fuel cars is that they are still tuned for their main source of fuel, traditional gas.</p><p>Ethonol also eliminates the need for a catalytic converter to eliminate engine knocking. If it can be produced using land which is inefficent for other agriculural uses such as west texas ranch land where hundres of acres are need per cow or argicultural byproducts such as corn cobs it is a great alternative to traditional petrolium based fuel. I never drank the corn based ethanol Koolaid, but an economical cellulosic based ethanol sounds very promising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read an interesting article about how ethanol really can be similar to gas , parituclar in an engine designed for gas .
http : //www.radford.edu/wkovarik/papers/fuel.htm [ radford.edu ] It seems as if ethanol is actually a good fuel when an engine is tuned properly .
It is used for racing already , most motorsports use pure ethanol as it has a higher octane rating which allows the production of more horsepower .
If you tune and gear an engine properly you should easily be able to get similar mileage .
The problem with flex fuel cars is that they are still tuned for their main source of fuel , traditional gas.Ethonol also eliminates the need for a catalytic converter to eliminate engine knocking .
If it can be produced using land which is inefficent for other agriculural uses such as west texas ranch land where hundres of acres are need per cow or argicultural byproducts such as corn cobs it is a great alternative to traditional petrolium based fuel .
I never drank the corn based ethanol Koolaid , but an economical cellulosic based ethanol sounds very promising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I read an interesting article about how ethanol really can be similar to gas, parituclar in an engine designed for gas.
http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/papers/fuel.htm [radford.edu]  It seems as if ethanol is actually a good fuel when an engine is tuned properly.
It is used for racing already, most motorsports use pure ethanol as it has a higher octane rating which allows the production of more horsepower.
If you tune and gear an engine properly you should easily be able to get similar mileage.
The problem with flex fuel cars is that they are still tuned for their main source of fuel, traditional gas.Ethonol also eliminates the need for a catalytic converter to eliminate engine knocking.
If it can be produced using land which is inefficent for other agriculural uses such as west texas ranch land where hundres of acres are need per cow or argicultural byproducts such as corn cobs it is a great alternative to traditional petrolium based fuel.
I never drank the corn based ethanol Koolaid, but an economical cellulosic based ethanol sounds very promising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163674</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>rabugento</author>
	<datestamp>1266333720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got some bad numbers. Brazil is the sixth largest auto producer in the world, with a production close to 3.2 million units last year (source ANFAVEA, http://www.anfavea.com.br/tabelas.html). The total fleet exceeds 58.5 million (source: Wikipedia, http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista\_de\_estados\_do\_Brasil\_por\_frota\_de\_ve\%C3\%ADculos). Most of the new cars are flex-fuel, capable of using anything from 20 to 100\% ethanol.</p><p>And, please, don't mix ethanol production and deforestation, at least not directly. Ethanol production is centered in the southeast, thousands of kilometers from the amazon. You will find grasslands and soybean in the amazon, and you can associate that (though it is debatable) with the recent expansion of sugarcane over old grasslands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got some bad numbers .
Brazil is the sixth largest auto producer in the world , with a production close to 3.2 million units last year ( source ANFAVEA , http : //www.anfavea.com.br/tabelas.html ) .
The total fleet exceeds 58.5 million ( source : Wikipedia , http : //pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista \ _de \ _estados \ _do \ _Brasil \ _por \ _frota \ _de \ _ve \ % C3 \ % ADculos ) .
Most of the new cars are flex-fuel , capable of using anything from 20 to 100 \ % ethanol.And , please , do n't mix ethanol production and deforestation , at least not directly .
Ethanol production is centered in the southeast , thousands of kilometers from the amazon .
You will find grasslands and soybean in the amazon , and you can associate that ( though it is debatable ) with the recent expansion of sugarcane over old grasslands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got some bad numbers.
Brazil is the sixth largest auto producer in the world, with a production close to 3.2 million units last year (source ANFAVEA, http://www.anfavea.com.br/tabelas.html).
The total fleet exceeds 58.5 million (source: Wikipedia, http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista\_de\_estados\_do\_Brasil\_por\_frota\_de\_ve\%C3\%ADculos).
Most of the new cars are flex-fuel, capable of using anything from 20 to 100\% ethanol.And, please, don't mix ethanol production and deforestation, at least not directly.
Ethanol production is centered in the southeast, thousands of kilometers from the amazon.
You will find grasslands and soybean in the amazon, and you can associate that (though it is debatable) with the recent expansion of sugarcane over old grasslands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161946</id>
	<title>Re:Chop Chop</title>
	<author>TheMeuge</author>
	<datestamp>1266323040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is that people expect a single decisive solution to a complex planet-wide problem.</p><p>Let me save everyone time and effort: unless we develop fusion-based power production, there isn't going to be one.</p><p>However, in the context of a world where squeezing the last bit of energy from dwindling resources is important, biofuels do have a role... as yet another technology that allows us to recycle what would otherwise be waste. Solar, geothermal, wind, and tide power... NONE of the above is THE solution to the world's energy problem. Neither is nuclear power, and neither are biofuels. A combination of ALL of the above on the other hand, could keep us going, without completely destroying what's left of our natural resources, long enough that we could develop new methods of power generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that people expect a single decisive solution to a complex planet-wide problem.Let me save everyone time and effort : unless we develop fusion-based power production , there is n't going to be one.However , in the context of a world where squeezing the last bit of energy from dwindling resources is important , biofuels do have a role... as yet another technology that allows us to recycle what would otherwise be waste .
Solar , geothermal , wind , and tide power... NONE of the above is THE solution to the world 's energy problem .
Neither is nuclear power , and neither are biofuels .
A combination of ALL of the above on the other hand , could keep us going , without completely destroying what 's left of our natural resources , long enough that we could develop new methods of power generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that people expect a single decisive solution to a complex planet-wide problem.Let me save everyone time and effort: unless we develop fusion-based power production, there isn't going to be one.However, in the context of a world where squeezing the last bit of energy from dwindling resources is important, biofuels do have a role... as yet another technology that allows us to recycle what would otherwise be waste.
Solar, geothermal, wind, and tide power... NONE of the above is THE solution to the world's energy problem.
Neither is nuclear power, and neither are biofuels.
A combination of ALL of the above on the other hand, could keep us going, without completely destroying what's left of our natural resources, long enough that we could develop new methods of power generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166946</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1265022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They JUST figured this out!!!????
<br>
This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!</i> <br> <br>Which dosn't make them very "green" in practice.<br> <br> <i>I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE! NOT a major food source!</i> <br> <br>IIRC Brazil started from a position of an excess of sugarcane production. You also get more sugar, per amount of plant, from one which stores a lot of sugar in it's stem compared with one where you can only use the fruit/seeds.<br>I wonder if "corn ethanol" came from the same bunch of idiots who though that High Fructose Corn Syrup was a suitable replacement for sucrose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They JUST figured this out ! ! ! ? ? ? ?
This is the problem with the green lords... they do n't think ahead of the unintended consequences !
Which dos n't make them very " green " in practice .
I 've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America ( Brazil ?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE !
NOT a major food source !
IIRC Brazil started from a position of an excess of sugarcane production .
You also get more sugar , per amount of plant , from one which stores a lot of sugar in it 's stem compared with one where you can only use the fruit/seeds.I wonder if " corn ethanol " came from the same bunch of idiots who though that High Fructose Corn Syrup was a suitable replacement for sucrose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They JUST figured this out!!!????
This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!
Which dosn't make them very "green" in practice.
I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!
NOT a major food source!
IIRC Brazil started from a position of an excess of sugarcane production.
You also get more sugar, per amount of plant, from one which stores a lot of sugar in it's stem compared with one where you can only use the fruit/seeds.I wonder if "corn ethanol" came from the same bunch of idiots who though that High Fructose Corn Syrup was a suitable replacement for sucrose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169610</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Carik</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily.</p><p>Right now I live where I can take a bus to work, but I can't take it to buy groceries, or anywhere else.  Because it doesn't GO anywhere else.  It takes me 15 minutes to drive to or from work; on the bus, it's 30 minutes there, and an hour back.  I lived for years in a town where the nearest bus stop was something like 5 miles away, all of it on a state highway with no shoulder, which wasn't even remotely safe to walk on.  Why?  Because it was a small town with a limited budget.  If you wanted to get somewhere, you drove.  Everyone would have been happy to take a bus, but the money just wasn't there, and it's hard to get the service started without any money to make the initial investment.</p><p>When I lived in Boston, I only drove when I left the city.  I spent three years using public transportation for everything, from commuting to shopping.  That just isn't possible most places.  Sure, I could move back, and have public transportation, but the cost of living is so much higher that it wouldn't really save me much, if anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily.Right now I live where I can take a bus to work , but I ca n't take it to buy groceries , or anywhere else .
Because it does n't GO anywhere else .
It takes me 15 minutes to drive to or from work ; on the bus , it 's 30 minutes there , and an hour back .
I lived for years in a town where the nearest bus stop was something like 5 miles away , all of it on a state highway with no shoulder , which was n't even remotely safe to walk on .
Why ? Because it was a small town with a limited budget .
If you wanted to get somewhere , you drove .
Everyone would have been happy to take a bus , but the money just was n't there , and it 's hard to get the service started without any money to make the initial investment.When I lived in Boston , I only drove when I left the city .
I spent three years using public transportation for everything , from commuting to shopping .
That just is n't possible most places .
Sure , I could move back , and have public transportation , but the cost of living is so much higher that it would n't really save me much , if anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.Right now I live where I can take a bus to work, but I can't take it to buy groceries, or anywhere else.
Because it doesn't GO anywhere else.
It takes me 15 minutes to drive to or from work; on the bus, it's 30 minutes there, and an hour back.
I lived for years in a town where the nearest bus stop was something like 5 miles away, all of it on a state highway with no shoulder, which wasn't even remotely safe to walk on.
Why?  Because it was a small town with a limited budget.
If you wanted to get somewhere, you drove.
Everyone would have been happy to take a bus, but the money just wasn't there, and it's hard to get the service started without any money to make the initial investment.When I lived in Boston, I only drove when I left the city.
I spent three years using public transportation for everything, from commuting to shopping.
That just isn't possible most places.
Sure, I could move back, and have public transportation, but the cost of living is so much higher that it wouldn't really save me much, if anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163228</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1266330300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A better solution is to increase the number of cars so that everyone can have a high MPG car for moving their rump around, and a bigger vehicle for the less common times when they have to carry packages or other persons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A better solution is to increase the number of cars so that everyone can have a high MPG car for moving their rump around , and a bigger vehicle for the less common times when they have to carry packages or other persons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better solution is to increase the number of cars so that everyone can have a high MPG car for moving their rump around, and a bigger vehicle for the less common times when they have to carry packages or other persons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162932</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1266328380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My aunt is paid by the government NOT to grow corn.  I'm not too worried about people going hungry due to lack of corn being caused by fuel use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My aunt is paid by the government NOT to grow corn .
I 'm not too worried about people going hungry due to lack of corn being caused by fuel use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My aunt is paid by the government NOT to grow corn.
I'm not too worried about people going hungry due to lack of corn being caused by fuel use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164018</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1266336480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans have always been incredibly spoiled by their gas prices, which are still far below what pretty much every other country has to pay to fill up (as much as half the price). I say deal with it and count yourself lucky that it's not higher. Cheaper prices are just going to encourage more waste at this point; the casual driving era is becoming a relic of the past, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially for the fattest nation on earth).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans have always been incredibly spoiled by their gas prices , which are still far below what pretty much every other country has to pay to fill up ( as much as half the price ) .
I say deal with it and count yourself lucky that it 's not higher .
Cheaper prices are just going to encourage more waste at this point ; the casual driving era is becoming a relic of the past , and this is n't necessarily a bad thing ( especially for the fattest nation on earth ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans have always been incredibly spoiled by their gas prices, which are still far below what pretty much every other country has to pay to fill up (as much as half the price).
I say deal with it and count yourself lucky that it's not higher.
Cheaper prices are just going to encourage more waste at this point; the casual driving era is becoming a relic of the past, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially for the fattest nation on earth).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167924</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265034120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there are a significant number of issues.</p><p>ENGINES may be handling it fine, whoever, fuel lines and gas tanks are corroding from the inside out due the the ethanol in the gas.  Multiple car companies, including Lexus, Toyota, GM and more) have had recalls to replace damaged fuel systems, and there have been fuel leaks, car fires, and deaths associated with the change to ethanol vs MTBE.  Ethanol also eats through fiberglass fuel cannisters and tanks in other vehicles.  If you car, lawnmower, or other vehicle has a Fiberglas fuel tank DO NOT use an ethanol blend of gas, it will destroy your fuel system, cause build-up in your engine, and could be a serious fire hazzard.</p><p>In older cars, Ethanol is also corrosive to engine seals (rubber vs more modern carbon composite seals).  Over time this dramatically drops the efficiency of the engine further, and can cause engine failure after long term exposure.</p><p>Further, the core reason for replacing MTBE with ethanol was the prevention of pollutants in runoff, however we've learned since then it was actually the fuel oxygenates, not the MTBE, causing this pollution, and with ethanol being less fuel efficient (fewer joules per litre) than MTBE, there's now a push to replace it again.</p><p>If you car is not a "flex-fuel" vehicle, you should NEVER put anything over 10\% ethanol in your car, and if possible, but ethanol-free fuel.  Flex fuel vehicles have both custom fuel systems, and are designed to run alcohol fuels without risk of corrosion of critical components.  They also have computers programmed to adjust to the changing oxygen and compression requirements of different fuels.  10\% won't cause serious power issues with your car, but over several years of use, especially in humid environments of if moisture gets in your fuel tank, the damage is very real.  2 cycle engines like lawn equipment are extremely susceptible as well.  What makes matters worse, there's no good system for guaranteeing the ethanol content in gasoline.  The pump says it's "up to 10\%" however field testing of tanker trucks hauling fresh fuel have found as high as 30\% content.  The local blending done at distribution centers varies, and they'll make whatever blend is cheapest to make based on the current price of the components of the fuel.  In some cases, ethanol is actually cheaper than regular gas, and they'll overuse ethanol.  If your engine has trouble, and you bring it in for service, and it;s not a flex-fuel car but your ethanol content is over 10\%, they'll assume you used e85 at some point, and void your warranty.  This has happened a LOT (check various forums).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are a significant number of issues.ENGINES may be handling it fine , whoever , fuel lines and gas tanks are corroding from the inside out due the the ethanol in the gas .
Multiple car companies , including Lexus , Toyota , GM and more ) have had recalls to replace damaged fuel systems , and there have been fuel leaks , car fires , and deaths associated with the change to ethanol vs MTBE .
Ethanol also eats through fiberglass fuel cannisters and tanks in other vehicles .
If you car , lawnmower , or other vehicle has a Fiberglas fuel tank DO NOT use an ethanol blend of gas , it will destroy your fuel system , cause build-up in your engine , and could be a serious fire hazzard.In older cars , Ethanol is also corrosive to engine seals ( rubber vs more modern carbon composite seals ) .
Over time this dramatically drops the efficiency of the engine further , and can cause engine failure after long term exposure.Further , the core reason for replacing MTBE with ethanol was the prevention of pollutants in runoff , however we 've learned since then it was actually the fuel oxygenates , not the MTBE , causing this pollution , and with ethanol being less fuel efficient ( fewer joules per litre ) than MTBE , there 's now a push to replace it again.If you car is not a " flex-fuel " vehicle , you should NEVER put anything over 10 \ % ethanol in your car , and if possible , but ethanol-free fuel .
Flex fuel vehicles have both custom fuel systems , and are designed to run alcohol fuels without risk of corrosion of critical components .
They also have computers programmed to adjust to the changing oxygen and compression requirements of different fuels .
10 \ % wo n't cause serious power issues with your car , but over several years of use , especially in humid environments of if moisture gets in your fuel tank , the damage is very real .
2 cycle engines like lawn equipment are extremely susceptible as well .
What makes matters worse , there 's no good system for guaranteeing the ethanol content in gasoline .
The pump says it 's " up to 10 \ % " however field testing of tanker trucks hauling fresh fuel have found as high as 30 \ % content .
The local blending done at distribution centers varies , and they 'll make whatever blend is cheapest to make based on the current price of the components of the fuel .
In some cases , ethanol is actually cheaper than regular gas , and they 'll overuse ethanol .
If your engine has trouble , and you bring it in for service , and it ; s not a flex-fuel car but your ethanol content is over 10 \ % , they 'll assume you used e85 at some point , and void your warranty .
This has happened a LOT ( check various forums ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are a significant number of issues.ENGINES may be handling it fine, whoever, fuel lines and gas tanks are corroding from the inside out due the the ethanol in the gas.
Multiple car companies, including Lexus, Toyota, GM and more) have had recalls to replace damaged fuel systems, and there have been fuel leaks, car fires, and deaths associated with the change to ethanol vs MTBE.
Ethanol also eats through fiberglass fuel cannisters and tanks in other vehicles.
If you car, lawnmower, or other vehicle has a Fiberglas fuel tank DO NOT use an ethanol blend of gas, it will destroy your fuel system, cause build-up in your engine, and could be a serious fire hazzard.In older cars, Ethanol is also corrosive to engine seals (rubber vs more modern carbon composite seals).
Over time this dramatically drops the efficiency of the engine further, and can cause engine failure after long term exposure.Further, the core reason for replacing MTBE with ethanol was the prevention of pollutants in runoff, however we've learned since then it was actually the fuel oxygenates, not the MTBE, causing this pollution, and with ethanol being less fuel efficient (fewer joules per litre) than MTBE, there's now a push to replace it again.If you car is not a "flex-fuel" vehicle, you should NEVER put anything over 10\% ethanol in your car, and if possible, but ethanol-free fuel.
Flex fuel vehicles have both custom fuel systems, and are designed to run alcohol fuels without risk of corrosion of critical components.
They also have computers programmed to adjust to the changing oxygen and compression requirements of different fuels.
10\% won't cause serious power issues with your car, but over several years of use, especially in humid environments of if moisture gets in your fuel tank, the damage is very real.
2 cycle engines like lawn equipment are extremely susceptible as well.
What makes matters worse, there's no good system for guaranteeing the ethanol content in gasoline.
The pump says it's "up to 10\%" however field testing of tanker trucks hauling fresh fuel have found as high as 30\% content.
The local blending done at distribution centers varies, and they'll make whatever blend is cheapest to make based on the current price of the components of the fuel.
In some cases, ethanol is actually cheaper than regular gas, and they'll overuse ethanol.
If your engine has trouble, and you bring it in for service, and it;s not a flex-fuel car but your ethanol content is over 10\%, they'll assume you used e85 at some point, and void your warranty.
This has happened a LOT (check various forums).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162654</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1266326760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will assume that you've spent your life in a place where public transit is readily available, which is great for you.  In places like New York, Washington, DC, London, Paris, and many functioning cities, you're right.  Having a car is not necessary and a luxury.</p><p>I work in Detroit.  I do not live in Detroit... Because it's Detroit.  I rely on my car because public transit has been noticeably absent in this region.  I also do not live within walking distance of work because if I did, I could not find groceries...  I'd have to drive out to the suburbs, or drive to the farmer's market on Saturday because there are no grocery stores, and the buses do not serve the farmer's market. Most of the useful places to purchase basic goods moved out of the city.</p><p>Going beyond the Detroit example:  Farmers need fuel.   Farmers feed you.  And sometimes they don't grow what they need to be farmers...  They need vehicles to get to the nearest town to fulfill the needs that arise from what they don't grow.</p><p>Simply stated: Your viewpoint is egocentric.  It does not consider situations outside what you currently live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will assume that you 've spent your life in a place where public transit is readily available , which is great for you .
In places like New York , Washington , DC , London , Paris , and many functioning cities , you 're right .
Having a car is not necessary and a luxury.I work in Detroit .
I do not live in Detroit... Because it 's Detroit .
I rely on my car because public transit has been noticeably absent in this region .
I also do not live within walking distance of work because if I did , I could not find groceries... I 'd have to drive out to the suburbs , or drive to the farmer 's market on Saturday because there are no grocery stores , and the buses do not serve the farmer 's market .
Most of the useful places to purchase basic goods moved out of the city.Going beyond the Detroit example : Farmers need fuel .
Farmers feed you .
And sometimes they do n't grow what they need to be farmers... They need vehicles to get to the nearest town to fulfill the needs that arise from what they do n't grow.Simply stated : Your viewpoint is egocentric .
It does not consider situations outside what you currently live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will assume that you've spent your life in a place where public transit is readily available, which is great for you.
In places like New York, Washington, DC, London, Paris, and many functioning cities, you're right.
Having a car is not necessary and a luxury.I work in Detroit.
I do not live in Detroit... Because it's Detroit.
I rely on my car because public transit has been noticeably absent in this region.
I also do not live within walking distance of work because if I did, I could not find groceries...  I'd have to drive out to the suburbs, or drive to the farmer's market on Saturday because there are no grocery stores, and the buses do not serve the farmer's market.
Most of the useful places to purchase basic goods moved out of the city.Going beyond the Detroit example:  Farmers need fuel.
Farmers feed you.
And sometimes they don't grow what they need to be farmers...  They need vehicles to get to the nearest town to fulfill the needs that arise from what they don't grow.Simply stated: Your viewpoint is egocentric.
It does not consider situations outside what you currently live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163762</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1266334740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better, according to the numbers given in the article the cost is still higher than gasoline.</p><p>If you go to the <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp" title="doe.gov">DOE site</a> [doe.gov] that breaks down gasoline prices you see that the costs of the crude oil and refining it into gasoline are approximately 74\% of December's retail price average of $2.61, making that part cost $1.93 per gallon. The article has this to say about the price of cellulostic biofuel.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In the United States, Novozymes is working with Poet LLC, the nation's top corn ethanol producer, which plans in 2011 to open a 25-million-gallon cellulosic plant fed with corn husks and corncobs. Over the past year, Poet has nearly halved its total production costs to $2.35 a gallon, and expects to fall below $2 by the ribbon-cutting.</p></div><p>Note that this price is heavily subsidized and it's STILL higher than plain old gasoline. They say in several years they might be able to get the enzyme costs down another 25 cents or so but I don't know if they are taking into account higher prices of feedstock as demand increases. Those increases will surely counteract some of the savings in enzyme costs.</p><p>I still don't understand what drives this technology. Years of research for something that is barely in the same price range as what it is intended to replace. Wouldn't we be better off investing in <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html" title="world-nuclear.org">small nuclear reactors</a> [world-nuclear.org]? They could be placed every few miles, provide cheap, plentiful, local electricity at very low losses which would charge electric vehicles or break apart water for hydrogen-powered cars.</p><p>Overall I dislike the high amount of government subsidies that go into alternative fuels. If a technology is promising then let the companies subsidize themselves, they can go out and get investors just like every other business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , according to the numbers given in the article the cost is still higher than gasoline.If you go to the DOE site [ doe.gov ] that breaks down gasoline prices you see that the costs of the crude oil and refining it into gasoline are approximately 74 \ % of December 's retail price average of $ 2.61 , making that part cost $ 1.93 per gallon .
The article has this to say about the price of cellulostic biofuel.In the United States , Novozymes is working with Poet LLC , the nation 's top corn ethanol producer , which plans in 2011 to open a 25-million-gallon cellulosic plant fed with corn husks and corncobs .
Over the past year , Poet has nearly halved its total production costs to $ 2.35 a gallon , and expects to fall below $ 2 by the ribbon-cutting.Note that this price is heavily subsidized and it 's STILL higher than plain old gasoline .
They say in several years they might be able to get the enzyme costs down another 25 cents or so but I do n't know if they are taking into account higher prices of feedstock as demand increases .
Those increases will surely counteract some of the savings in enzyme costs.I still do n't understand what drives this technology .
Years of research for something that is barely in the same price range as what it is intended to replace .
Would n't we be better off investing in small nuclear reactors [ world-nuclear.org ] ?
They could be placed every few miles , provide cheap , plentiful , local electricity at very low losses which would charge electric vehicles or break apart water for hydrogen-powered cars.Overall I dislike the high amount of government subsidies that go into alternative fuels .
If a technology is promising then let the companies subsidize themselves , they can go out and get investors just like every other business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, according to the numbers given in the article the cost is still higher than gasoline.If you go to the DOE site [doe.gov] that breaks down gasoline prices you see that the costs of the crude oil and refining it into gasoline are approximately 74\% of December's retail price average of $2.61, making that part cost $1.93 per gallon.
The article has this to say about the price of cellulostic biofuel.In the United States, Novozymes is working with Poet LLC, the nation's top corn ethanol producer, which plans in 2011 to open a 25-million-gallon cellulosic plant fed with corn husks and corncobs.
Over the past year, Poet has nearly halved its total production costs to $2.35 a gallon, and expects to fall below $2 by the ribbon-cutting.Note that this price is heavily subsidized and it's STILL higher than plain old gasoline.
They say in several years they might be able to get the enzyme costs down another 25 cents or so but I don't know if they are taking into account higher prices of feedstock as demand increases.
Those increases will surely counteract some of the savings in enzyme costs.I still don't understand what drives this technology.
Years of research for something that is barely in the same price range as what it is intended to replace.
Wouldn't we be better off investing in small nuclear reactors [world-nuclear.org]?
They could be placed every few miles, provide cheap, plentiful, local electricity at very low losses which would charge electric vehicles or break apart water for hydrogen-powered cars.Overall I dislike the high amount of government subsidies that go into alternative fuels.
If a technology is promising then let the companies subsidize themselves, they can go out and get investors just like every other business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</id>
	<title>Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266322020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b> <i>This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger."</i> </b></p><p>They JUST figured this out!!!????</p><p>This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!</p><p>I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!  NOT a major food source!</p><p>Glad someone is finally waking up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger .
" They JUST figured this out ! ! ! ? ? ?
? This is the problem with the green lords... they do n't think ahead of the unintended consequences ! I 've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America ( Brazil ?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE !
NOT a major food source ! Glad someone is finally waking up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger.
" They JUST figured this out!!!???
?This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!
NOT a major food source!Glad someone is finally waking up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162176</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266324180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solution:</p><p>Forget the idea that there is a silver bullet for this werewolf (saw wolfman this weekend).  We should aim for cars that can run on multiple sources of fuel and have multiple ways of creating that fuel.  If it is electricity, use nuclear AND coal AND wind AND geo AND AND AND.  If it is Bio, let's use as many sources as we can.</p><p>\_\_<br>i find it odd that people think that biofuels could cause a food shortage.  There's plenty of food and plenty of land to make more food.  We might have to rethink how we use land though.  For instance, cows ar are huge waste of land that are choking the rivers and adding to the green house effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution : Forget the idea that there is a silver bullet for this werewolf ( saw wolfman this weekend ) .
We should aim for cars that can run on multiple sources of fuel and have multiple ways of creating that fuel .
If it is electricity , use nuclear AND coal AND wind AND geo AND AND AND .
If it is Bio , let 's use as many sources as we can. \ _ \ _i find it odd that people think that biofuels could cause a food shortage .
There 's plenty of food and plenty of land to make more food .
We might have to rethink how we use land though .
For instance , cows ar are huge waste of land that are choking the rivers and adding to the green house effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution:Forget the idea that there is a silver bullet for this werewolf (saw wolfman this weekend).
We should aim for cars that can run on multiple sources of fuel and have multiple ways of creating that fuel.
If it is electricity, use nuclear AND coal AND wind AND geo AND AND AND.
If it is Bio, let's use as many sources as we can.\_\_i find it odd that people think that biofuels could cause a food shortage.
There's plenty of food and plenty of land to make more food.
We might have to rethink how we use land though.
For instance, cows ar are huge waste of land that are choking the rivers and adding to the green house effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162352</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266325140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a fallacy hidden in there: that world hunger is due to not producing enough food.</p><p>Here's the production of the top four biggest US corn producing states, as of 2006, in <a href="http://www.corn.org/uscprod.htm" title="corn.org">thousands of bushels</a> [corn.org]:</p><ul>
<li>IA: 2,244,400</li><li>IL: 2,088,000</li><li>NE: 1,319,700</li><li>MN: 1,120,950</li></ul><p> <b>Total</b>: 6,773,050 thousand bushels</p><p> <a href="http://green.autoblog.com/2007/03/01/more-caution-against-ethanol-boom-instead-montana-ecologist-pu/" title="autoblog.com">A blog comment</a> [autoblog.com] cites 134,400 calories per bushel (couldn't find a better source for this). So the total calories produce from all the corn above is:</p><p>6,773,050 * 1000 * 134,400 = 910,298,592,000,000 calories</p><p>On a 2000 calorie / day diet, a person eats 2000 * 365 = 730,000 calories / year</p><p>Production of just those 4 states can therefore feed a population of about 1.2 billion people. Of course, you'll be nutrient deficient on a corn-only diet, but hopefully the rest of the planet can pick up the slack for that and the remaining 5.3 billion people. And it's not like those states are <i>only</i> corn producers, anyway.</p><p>If production isn't the underling problem, then we need to look elsewhere or else we'll accomplish nothing in solving the problem. One of the prime places to look is how the food often gets stopped in harbor because the right palms aren't being greased, or how local warlords hijack shipments and use food as a weapon.</p><p>For certain, corn ethanol was never going to cover even 10\% of US energy needs. But the hunger argument isn't a very good one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a fallacy hidden in there : that world hunger is due to not producing enough food.Here 's the production of the top four biggest US corn producing states , as of 2006 , in thousands of bushels [ corn.org ] : IA : 2,244,400IL : 2,088,000NE : 1,319,700MN : 1,120,950 Total : 6,773,050 thousand bushels A blog comment [ autoblog.com ] cites 134,400 calories per bushel ( could n't find a better source for this ) .
So the total calories produce from all the corn above is : 6,773,050 * 1000 * 134,400 = 910,298,592,000,000 caloriesOn a 2000 calorie / day diet , a person eats 2000 * 365 = 730,000 calories / yearProduction of just those 4 states can therefore feed a population of about 1.2 billion people .
Of course , you 'll be nutrient deficient on a corn-only diet , but hopefully the rest of the planet can pick up the slack for that and the remaining 5.3 billion people .
And it 's not like those states are only corn producers , anyway.If production is n't the underling problem , then we need to look elsewhere or else we 'll accomplish nothing in solving the problem .
One of the prime places to look is how the food often gets stopped in harbor because the right palms are n't being greased , or how local warlords hijack shipments and use food as a weapon.For certain , corn ethanol was never going to cover even 10 \ % of US energy needs .
But the hunger argument is n't a very good one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a fallacy hidden in there: that world hunger is due to not producing enough food.Here's the production of the top four biggest US corn producing states, as of 2006, in thousands of bushels [corn.org]:
IA: 2,244,400IL: 2,088,000NE: 1,319,700MN: 1,120,950 Total: 6,773,050 thousand bushels A blog comment [autoblog.com] cites 134,400 calories per bushel (couldn't find a better source for this).
So the total calories produce from all the corn above is:6,773,050 * 1000 * 134,400 = 910,298,592,000,000 caloriesOn a 2000 calorie / day diet, a person eats 2000 * 365 = 730,000 calories / yearProduction of just those 4 states can therefore feed a population of about 1.2 billion people.
Of course, you'll be nutrient deficient on a corn-only diet, but hopefully the rest of the planet can pick up the slack for that and the remaining 5.3 billion people.
And it's not like those states are only corn producers, anyway.If production isn't the underling problem, then we need to look elsewhere or else we'll accomplish nothing in solving the problem.
One of the prime places to look is how the food often gets stopped in harbor because the right palms aren't being greased, or how local warlords hijack shipments and use food as a weapon.For certain, corn ethanol was never going to cover even 10\% of US energy needs.
But the hunger argument isn't a very good one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163552</id>
	<title>Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1266333000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, engines that are rebuilt every 1200 miles are a great testament to how friendly ethanol is on engines.</p><p>Engines can be designed to run great on ethanol, but you need to <i>design</i> them for it.  That means no rubber hoses or plastic components anywhere in the fuel system (ethanol will turn these to jelly), no steel/iron engine blocks (ethanol will corrode these like nothing), no brass fittings (you'll get galvanic corrosion of anything aluminum in the fuel system, and since steel/iron is out, you pretty much have to use an aluminum block), use high compression and forced induction (ethanol has an incredible octane rating), etc.  It's perfectly doable, but it is not cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , engines that are rebuilt every 1200 miles are a great testament to how friendly ethanol is on engines.Engines can be designed to run great on ethanol , but you need to design them for it .
That means no rubber hoses or plastic components anywhere in the fuel system ( ethanol will turn these to jelly ) , no steel/iron engine blocks ( ethanol will corrode these like nothing ) , no brass fittings ( you 'll get galvanic corrosion of anything aluminum in the fuel system , and since steel/iron is out , you pretty much have to use an aluminum block ) , use high compression and forced induction ( ethanol has an incredible octane rating ) , etc .
It 's perfectly doable , but it is not cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, engines that are rebuilt every 1200 miles are a great testament to how friendly ethanol is on engines.Engines can be designed to run great on ethanol, but you need to design them for it.
That means no rubber hoses or plastic components anywhere in the fuel system (ethanol will turn these to jelly), no steel/iron engine blocks (ethanol will corrode these like nothing), no brass fittings (you'll get galvanic corrosion of anything aluminum in the fuel system, and since steel/iron is out, you pretty much have to use an aluminum block), use high compression and forced induction (ethanol has an incredible octane rating), etc.
It's perfectly doable, but it is not cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163824</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't know shit about Zimbabwe or its history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't know shit about Zimbabwe or its history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't know shit about Zimbabwe or its history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062</id>
	<title>Step in the Right Direction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This a positive step in the right direction.  I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.  This drove the price of cereal up as we should all recall in and around 2007 when cereal suddenly sky rocketed. A cellulose process makes far more sense, from an economic and an environmental standpoint because waste products can be used.  After all, who eats the corn cob?  This is a step towards energy independence but still does not fully address the environmental concerns.  We need to move away from internal combustion, carbon emissions and look towards fuel cells.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This a positive step in the right direction .
I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him .
This drove the price of cereal up as we should all recall in and around 2007 when cereal suddenly sky rocketed .
A cellulose process makes far more sense , from an economic and an environmental standpoint because waste products can be used .
After all , who eats the corn cob ?
This is a step towards energy independence but still does not fully address the environmental concerns .
We need to move away from internal combustion , carbon emissions and look towards fuel cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This a positive step in the right direction.
I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.
This drove the price of cereal up as we should all recall in and around 2007 when cereal suddenly sky rocketed.
A cellulose process makes far more sense, from an economic and an environmental standpoint because waste products can be used.
After all, who eats the corn cob?
This is a step towards energy independence but still does not fully address the environmental concerns.
We need to move away from internal combustion, carbon emissions and look towards fuel cells.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162106</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1266323880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but when I read the report, the guy writing it sounded like a nutter.  Apparently, there are no good sides to biofuels at all.  In my experience, every report on a controversial issue that finds 100\% on one side is a lie.  Doesn't matter if it's for or against it.  If they have nothing good to say about it, then they were looking only for things to say bad, and thus they are wrong.  The "report" seems to be one guy's opinion, backed up by fabricated numbers (experts call them estimates, but an estimate where you know what you want to find and make sure the numbers fit is no longer an estimate).  And he even goes so far as to say it's as bad as oil for greenhouse gases.  But he justifies that by indicating that biofuels will be made by clear-cutting rain forest and using the worst possible fertilizers.  He makes the worst possible assumptions in all cases against biofuels.  The report can't be held to indicate anything more than "done wrong, any good idea can fail."  Other than mental masturbation to promote his personal beliefs using horrible assumptions and fabricated numbers, there's nothing of substance left.<br> <br>But it makes a couple good quotes, and so I'm sure people will be referring to it.  But it's hard to discuss his "findings" when they were so obviously concocted with a specific agenda in mind.<br> <br> <i>I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE! NOT a major food source!</i> <br> <br>Um, sugar is a major food source (counting caloric intake as "food").  And nobody likes corn-based ethanol except for the corn lobby and the politicians they pay off.  It isn't like a revelation that using corn sucks.  But switchgrass and such will never take off in the US when the Congress is paid for by big corporations.  It isn't the environmentalists screwing everything up, as the conservative media asserts.  It's Congress, on the orders of big business.  And no, it doesn't matter which party controls what.  It isn't a party issue.  The only party issue is that when government fails, the conservatives blame the liberal voters.  Who is actually in office makes precious little difference anymore.<br> <br> <i>This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!</i> <br> <br>You must be listening to some other Green Lords.  The ones I hear want switchgrass, algae, corn husks, and organic waste converted to fuel.  The ones that think a "report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger" is about people getting hungry when they smell the diesel car drive past burning old french fry oil, because using foodstuffs as a sole source of ethanol (and ethanol as the only biofuel) is incredibly stupid.  But the actual Green Lords have a much smaller voice than what Rush asserts they are saying, and for some reason, when the two statements conflict, people believe the paid entertainer's purposeful mis-characterization over the actual words and/or clarifications from the Green Lords.  When you fix that, you'll be well on the way to fixing the problem with the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but when I read the report , the guy writing it sounded like a nutter .
Apparently , there are no good sides to biofuels at all .
In my experience , every report on a controversial issue that finds 100 \ % on one side is a lie .
Does n't matter if it 's for or against it .
If they have nothing good to say about it , then they were looking only for things to say bad , and thus they are wrong .
The " report " seems to be one guy 's opinion , backed up by fabricated numbers ( experts call them estimates , but an estimate where you know what you want to find and make sure the numbers fit is no longer an estimate ) .
And he even goes so far as to say it 's as bad as oil for greenhouse gases .
But he justifies that by indicating that biofuels will be made by clear-cutting rain forest and using the worst possible fertilizers .
He makes the worst possible assumptions in all cases against biofuels .
The report ca n't be held to indicate anything more than " done wrong , any good idea can fail .
" Other than mental masturbation to promote his personal beliefs using horrible assumptions and fabricated numbers , there 's nothing of substance left .
But it makes a couple good quotes , and so I 'm sure people will be referring to it .
But it 's hard to discuss his " findings " when they were so obviously concocted with a specific agenda in mind .
I 've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America ( Brazil ?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE !
NOT a major food source !
Um , sugar is a major food source ( counting caloric intake as " food " ) .
And nobody likes corn-based ethanol except for the corn lobby and the politicians they pay off .
It is n't like a revelation that using corn sucks .
But switchgrass and such will never take off in the US when the Congress is paid for by big corporations .
It is n't the environmentalists screwing everything up , as the conservative media asserts .
It 's Congress , on the orders of big business .
And no , it does n't matter which party controls what .
It is n't a party issue .
The only party issue is that when government fails , the conservatives blame the liberal voters .
Who is actually in office makes precious little difference anymore .
This is the problem with the green lords... they do n't think ahead of the unintended consequences !
You must be listening to some other Green Lords .
The ones I hear want switchgrass , algae , corn husks , and organic waste converted to fuel .
The ones that think a " report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger " is about people getting hungry when they smell the diesel car drive past burning old french fry oil , because using foodstuffs as a sole source of ethanol ( and ethanol as the only biofuel ) is incredibly stupid .
But the actual Green Lords have a much smaller voice than what Rush asserts they are saying , and for some reason , when the two statements conflict , people believe the paid entertainer 's purposeful mis-characterization over the actual words and/or clarifications from the Green Lords .
When you fix that , you 'll be well on the way to fixing the problem with the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but when I read the report, the guy writing it sounded like a nutter.
Apparently, there are no good sides to biofuels at all.
In my experience, every report on a controversial issue that finds 100\% on one side is a lie.
Doesn't matter if it's for or against it.
If they have nothing good to say about it, then they were looking only for things to say bad, and thus they are wrong.
The "report" seems to be one guy's opinion, backed up by fabricated numbers (experts call them estimates, but an estimate where you know what you want to find and make sure the numbers fit is no longer an estimate).
And he even goes so far as to say it's as bad as oil for greenhouse gases.
But he justifies that by indicating that biofuels will be made by clear-cutting rain forest and using the worst possible fertilizers.
He makes the worst possible assumptions in all cases against biofuels.
The report can't be held to indicate anything more than "done wrong, any good idea can fail.
"  Other than mental masturbation to promote his personal beliefs using horrible assumptions and fabricated numbers, there's nothing of substance left.
But it makes a couple good quotes, and so I'm sure people will be referring to it.
But it's hard to discuss his "findings" when they were so obviously concocted with a specific agenda in mind.
I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!
NOT a major food source!
Um, sugar is a major food source (counting caloric intake as "food").
And nobody likes corn-based ethanol except for the corn lobby and the politicians they pay off.
It isn't like a revelation that using corn sucks.
But switchgrass and such will never take off in the US when the Congress is paid for by big corporations.
It isn't the environmentalists screwing everything up, as the conservative media asserts.
It's Congress, on the orders of big business.
And no, it doesn't matter which party controls what.
It isn't a party issue.
The only party issue is that when government fails, the conservatives blame the liberal voters.
Who is actually in office makes precious little difference anymore.
This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!
You must be listening to some other Green Lords.
The ones I hear want switchgrass, algae, corn husks, and organic waste converted to fuel.
The ones that think a "report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger" is about people getting hungry when they smell the diesel car drive past burning old french fry oil, because using foodstuffs as a sole source of ethanol (and ethanol as the only biofuel) is incredibly stupid.
But the actual Green Lords have a much smaller voice than what Rush asserts they are saying, and for some reason, when the two statements conflict, people believe the paid entertainer's purposeful mis-characterization over the actual words and/or clarifications from the Green Lords.
When you fix that, you'll be well on the way to fixing the problem with the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164228</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266337680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't blame the Republicans, blame farm-state politicians, regardless of party affiliation.  In my state, Democrats support corn-based ethanol just as much as Republicans - it gets them the votes/contributions they seek.</p><p>- T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't blame the Republicans , blame farm-state politicians , regardless of party affiliation .
In my state , Democrats support corn-based ethanol just as much as Republicans - it gets them the votes/contributions they seek.- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't blame the Republicans, blame farm-state politicians, regardless of party affiliation.
In my state, Democrats support corn-based ethanol just as much as Republicans - it gets them the votes/contributions they seek.- T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162568</id>
	<title>And somewhere in the universe</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1266326280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stock ticker DBA is smiling and will keep on smiling</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stock ticker DBA is smiling and will keep on smiling</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stock ticker DBA is smiling and will keep on smiling</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162246</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1266324540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Unless this new fuel is better than E85, I can't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors. Now if it is somehow better than E85, then that would be some good news. Alas, the story is mute on this topic.</i></p><p>It's ethanol, and will have all the same properties as everyone else's ethanol.  Perhaps they'll be able to get the price low enough to make up for the difference in energy density once they start using plants with a better yield than corn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless this new fuel is better than E85 , I ca n't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors .
Now if it is somehow better than E85 , then that would be some good news .
Alas , the story is mute on this topic.It 's ethanol , and will have all the same properties as everyone else 's ethanol .
Perhaps they 'll be able to get the price low enough to make up for the difference in energy density once they start using plants with a better yield than corn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless this new fuel is better than E85, I can't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors.
Now if it is somehow better than E85, then that would be some good news.
Alas, the story is mute on this topic.It's ethanol, and will have all the same properties as everyone else's ethanol.
Perhaps they'll be able to get the price low enough to make up for the difference in energy density once they start using plants with a better yield than corn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167230</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Donniedarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1265026320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in a decently rural town. Most people here work in nearby towns (TOWNS, NOT CITIES) that are much larger than the area I live in.<p>

Even those (bigger) towns don't have public transit systems.... And even for those of us who work HERE, we sure as hell can't walk to work. The center of town is about 4-5 miles from here, and there are no sidewalks or anything of that sort. It would mean walking up (and down) hills on the side of the highway the whole way there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a decently rural town .
Most people here work in nearby towns ( TOWNS , NOT CITIES ) that are much larger than the area I live in .
Even those ( bigger ) towns do n't have public transit systems.... And even for those of us who work HERE , we sure as hell ca n't walk to work .
The center of town is about 4-5 miles from here , and there are no sidewalks or anything of that sort .
It would mean walking up ( and down ) hills on the side of the highway the whole way there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a decently rural town.
Most people here work in nearby towns (TOWNS, NOT CITIES) that are much larger than the area I live in.
Even those (bigger) towns don't have public transit systems.... And even for those of us who work HERE, we sure as hell can't walk to work.
The center of town is about 4-5 miles from here, and there are no sidewalks or anything of that sort.
It would mean walking up (and down) hills on the side of the highway the whole way there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161918</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1266322980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel</p></div></blockquote><p>The standard gasoline blend (i.e. what you get if you buy "normal" gasoline) is 20-25\% ethanol in Brazil, but there is also pure ethanol available, and &gt;80\% of new cars are able to use either the E25 or E100 fuel. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel\_vehicle#Brazil" title="wikipedia.org">Some details here</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuelThe standard gasoline blend ( i.e .
what you get if you buy " normal " gasoline ) is 20-25 \ % ethanol in Brazil , but there is also pure ethanol available , and &gt; 80 \ % of new cars are able to use either the E25 or E100 fuel .
Some details here [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuelThe standard gasoline blend (i.e.
what you get if you buy "normal" gasoline) is 20-25\% ethanol in Brazil, but there is also pure ethanol available, and &gt;80\% of new cars are able to use either the E25 or E100 fuel.
Some details here [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168644</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>WebCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265037900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cars are a luxury item, if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.</p></div><p>Urban dwellers can sometimes be really ignorant, insular closed-minded people.  Not every job to which people must drive is also served by public transit, nor could it even practically be done.</p><p>There are large farms all over North America where owners and workers must drive to work on them (not to mention actually drive the equipment during the actual work).  Paying for fuel is no luxury for those people--it is a cost associated with their way of living.  Truck drivers have the same problem.  They are often owner-operators who must cover their own fuel costs out of what they receive in compensation under contract from transportation companies, and if fuel prices rise too high too quickly there is the potential to lose money at times.  Yes, nobody forced people into those career choices, but if nobody did these jobs there would be nobody to produce the food you eat nor deliver it to within walking distance of your comfortable, well-serviced urban home.</p><p>Then there are industrial jobs, most often involving shift work at times when public transit is not in operation because passenger volume is so low that it actually is MORE expensive and harmful to the environment to operate than personal transportation.  Generally car-pooling is the only option to not driving your own automobile so fuel costs are unsubsidised and more directly felt, and living close to work is not an option because living next to places like large and/or noisy and/or dirty places like power generating stations, mines, mills, factories and so on can be intolerable. Furhtermore, closed-minded people with opinions similar to those you've expressed are often also the most strident NIMBYists, so even if industrial sites are not dependent on locating where fuel and other non-relocatable resources are, they must be put in remote locations so as not to disturb property values, peace of the community and so forth of comfortable urban dwellers.  As such, the largest industrial facilities are located outside urban areas, often fare from them near small towns, beyond the reach of public transit.</p><p>It would be all wonderful if we had some utopian version of Soviet central planning where subsidised public transit reached all places of work and all shift workers started in sync at pre-designated times (in a manner that doesn't somehow cause power brownouts due to multiple large factories starting up in sync as well) and we all grew our own food in our back yards and on apartment rooves and staple goods were all magically sold at affordable prices by independently-owned corner-stores placed every 5 to 10 city blocks that they somehow obtained without the need to pay for delivery costs...but somehow we cannot achieve those feats of magic in real life--those in Soviet-style economies invariably have to wait in line for even the basic essentials, companies actually like to run their own businesses, people can't be bothered growing their own food and the neighbourhood corner store is neither independently-owned nor offers the most affordable prices.  Ultimately, someone somewhere MUST drive and some form of transportation MUST consume fuel and therefore must bear the cost of fuel prices.</p><p>So, you might be thinking you're all green and such for not using your automobile, remember that even having the option to do so is considered a luxury by some, and that even by going the "green thing" by not driving you ARE in fact paying for gas even of you are not doing so directly.  When the price of the loaf of bread or jug of milk goes up at your local market and people tell you it is because of rising fuel costs, you'd better believe it, because fuel costs are amongst the largest and most volatile expenses of doing business in most industries.  WE ALL PAY FOR GAS AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE ABOUT IT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars are a luxury item , if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work , you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.Urban dwellers can sometimes be really ignorant , insular closed-minded people .
Not every job to which people must drive is also served by public transit , nor could it even practically be done.There are large farms all over North America where owners and workers must drive to work on them ( not to mention actually drive the equipment during the actual work ) .
Paying for fuel is no luxury for those people--it is a cost associated with their way of living .
Truck drivers have the same problem .
They are often owner-operators who must cover their own fuel costs out of what they receive in compensation under contract from transportation companies , and if fuel prices rise too high too quickly there is the potential to lose money at times .
Yes , nobody forced people into those career choices , but if nobody did these jobs there would be nobody to produce the food you eat nor deliver it to within walking distance of your comfortable , well-serviced urban home.Then there are industrial jobs , most often involving shift work at times when public transit is not in operation because passenger volume is so low that it actually is MORE expensive and harmful to the environment to operate than personal transportation .
Generally car-pooling is the only option to not driving your own automobile so fuel costs are unsubsidised and more directly felt , and living close to work is not an option because living next to places like large and/or noisy and/or dirty places like power generating stations , mines , mills , factories and so on can be intolerable .
Furhtermore , closed-minded people with opinions similar to those you 've expressed are often also the most strident NIMBYists , so even if industrial sites are not dependent on locating where fuel and other non-relocatable resources are , they must be put in remote locations so as not to disturb property values , peace of the community and so forth of comfortable urban dwellers .
As such , the largest industrial facilities are located outside urban areas , often fare from them near small towns , beyond the reach of public transit.It would be all wonderful if we had some utopian version of Soviet central planning where subsidised public transit reached all places of work and all shift workers started in sync at pre-designated times ( in a manner that does n't somehow cause power brownouts due to multiple large factories starting up in sync as well ) and we all grew our own food in our back yards and on apartment rooves and staple goods were all magically sold at affordable prices by independently-owned corner-stores placed every 5 to 10 city blocks that they somehow obtained without the need to pay for delivery costs...but somehow we can not achieve those feats of magic in real life--those in Soviet-style economies invariably have to wait in line for even the basic essentials , companies actually like to run their own businesses , people ca n't be bothered growing their own food and the neighbourhood corner store is neither independently-owned nor offers the most affordable prices .
Ultimately , someone somewhere MUST drive and some form of transportation MUST consume fuel and therefore must bear the cost of fuel prices.So , you might be thinking you 're all green and such for not using your automobile , remember that even having the option to do so is considered a luxury by some , and that even by going the " green thing " by not driving you ARE in fact paying for gas even of you are not doing so directly .
When the price of the loaf of bread or jug of milk goes up at your local market and people tell you it is because of rising fuel costs , you 'd better believe it , because fuel costs are amongst the largest and most volatile expenses of doing business in most industries .
WE ALL PAY FOR GAS AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE ABOUT IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars are a luxury item, if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.Urban dwellers can sometimes be really ignorant, insular closed-minded people.
Not every job to which people must drive is also served by public transit, nor could it even practically be done.There are large farms all over North America where owners and workers must drive to work on them (not to mention actually drive the equipment during the actual work).
Paying for fuel is no luxury for those people--it is a cost associated with their way of living.
Truck drivers have the same problem.
They are often owner-operators who must cover their own fuel costs out of what they receive in compensation under contract from transportation companies, and if fuel prices rise too high too quickly there is the potential to lose money at times.
Yes, nobody forced people into those career choices, but if nobody did these jobs there would be nobody to produce the food you eat nor deliver it to within walking distance of your comfortable, well-serviced urban home.Then there are industrial jobs, most often involving shift work at times when public transit is not in operation because passenger volume is so low that it actually is MORE expensive and harmful to the environment to operate than personal transportation.
Generally car-pooling is the only option to not driving your own automobile so fuel costs are unsubsidised and more directly felt, and living close to work is not an option because living next to places like large and/or noisy and/or dirty places like power generating stations, mines, mills, factories and so on can be intolerable.
Furhtermore, closed-minded people with opinions similar to those you've expressed are often also the most strident NIMBYists, so even if industrial sites are not dependent on locating where fuel and other non-relocatable resources are, they must be put in remote locations so as not to disturb property values, peace of the community and so forth of comfortable urban dwellers.
As such, the largest industrial facilities are located outside urban areas, often fare from them near small towns, beyond the reach of public transit.It would be all wonderful if we had some utopian version of Soviet central planning where subsidised public transit reached all places of work and all shift workers started in sync at pre-designated times (in a manner that doesn't somehow cause power brownouts due to multiple large factories starting up in sync as well) and we all grew our own food in our back yards and on apartment rooves and staple goods were all magically sold at affordable prices by independently-owned corner-stores placed every 5 to 10 city blocks that they somehow obtained without the need to pay for delivery costs...but somehow we cannot achieve those feats of magic in real life--those in Soviet-style economies invariably have to wait in line for even the basic essentials, companies actually like to run their own businesses, people can't be bothered growing their own food and the neighbourhood corner store is neither independently-owned nor offers the most affordable prices.
Ultimately, someone somewhere MUST drive and some form of transportation MUST consume fuel and therefore must bear the cost of fuel prices.So, you might be thinking you're all green and such for not using your automobile, remember that even having the option to do so is considered a luxury by some, and that even by going the "green thing" by not driving you ARE in fact paying for gas even of you are not doing so directly.
When the price of the loaf of bread or jug of milk goes up at your local market and people tell you it is because of rising fuel costs, you'd better believe it, because fuel costs are amongst the largest and most volatile expenses of doing business in most industries.
WE ALL PAY FOR GAS AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE ABOUT IT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165394</id>
	<title>Once again Slashdot regurgitates soundbites.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266345420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a single mention of EROEI.  Everyone fails to look at the fact that most of the Ethanol in question is produced with oil products as a basis.  People are WHINING about "high prices".</p><p>Here's a clue:  Go open your refrigerator door.  Take all the food out.  Throw it away.  Destroy your car.  You cannot go to the grocery store, because for this little thought exercise, it effectively has closed its doors and there is no food on the shelves.  Go outside and look around for food.  Find any?  No?  Hungry?  Wondering just what the fuck you're going to do?</p><p>Guess what.  That's gonna happen in about two decades, unless we get our collective shit together and figure this out.  Given humanity's great penchant for fucking over long term viability for short term gain, I highly suspect the future will look less and less like the streamlined utopias of the 70's/80's and more like a bad rerun of Mad Max Thunderdome.</p><p>There is no magic bullet to fix the current world-wide resource depletion that we are experiencing other than "we're gonna build a metric shitload of nuclear reactors" or "we'll damn the ever-loving crap out of what little freshwater waterways are left", or any other number of potential "issues".  No matter how you slice it, unless we get something like ultracheap fusion under control, we're pretty much fucked.</p><p>"But people will invest in tech blah-blah and it will save the day".  No it won't.  Vested interests have too much money to loose and too much inertia; they'll invest in anything under the sun to stop it, including sueing you, bankrupting you, sladering you, or ${DIETY} forbid, worse.</p><p>"But people will do behavior X because the cost of Y will be so high that it suddenly makes sense to change behavior."  Wrong again.  This is the same classic problem that economists always have - assuming that people are "rational consumers".  Guess what, they aren't.  Your neighbor will gladly stab you in your sleep to steal a peanut butter jar if people are starving.  Crime rates go UP during hard economic times because - you guessed it - it's easier to steal than to find a job.  Of course, it would be cheaper to find some way to make a community co-op farm on a plot of land in the city, but where's the fat profits to be had that you can currently get from outsourcing prisons?  People are NOT FUCKING RATIONAL.</p><p>"But we've had downturns before"  Yup, but if you look closely at each downturn, and overlay them from start to finish, they keep getting longer and longer...last one was years in the making.  The "economy" is oscillating more and more as the system becomes unbalanced.  At what point does it oscillate so badly that you don't live long enough to see the "recovery".</p><p>"But capitalism will solve this".  No, it will make it far, far worse, especially combined with America's stupid penchant for "growth at all costs".  It will encourage people to consume even more finite resources on the predication that there is an infinite resource base to draw from, because in America's current economy, everything is about growth.  How do you grow something with finite resources?  Sooner or later, you run the fuck out.  And guess what, your business shutters and people go without a job.  Hm, where have I heard that?  Oh, that's right, the fucking news...</p><p>PS.  You do know that about 90\% of the food that was grown and eventually turned into "something else" in your fridge is directly reliant on nitrogen fertilizer that's derived from oil, right?  What, you think that the soil will just provide infinite amounts of resources?  That the magic nitrogen fairly sprinkles pixie dust on those crops?</p><p>PSS.  Go over to http://www.theoildrum.com/ and get an education that doesn't involve twiddling electrons into pretty pictures and fiat money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a single mention of EROEI .
Everyone fails to look at the fact that most of the Ethanol in question is produced with oil products as a basis .
People are WHINING about " high prices " .Here 's a clue : Go open your refrigerator door .
Take all the food out .
Throw it away .
Destroy your car .
You can not go to the grocery store , because for this little thought exercise , it effectively has closed its doors and there is no food on the shelves .
Go outside and look around for food .
Find any ?
No ? Hungry ?
Wondering just what the fuck you 're going to do ? Guess what .
That 's gon na happen in about two decades , unless we get our collective shit together and figure this out .
Given humanity 's great penchant for fucking over long term viability for short term gain , I highly suspect the future will look less and less like the streamlined utopias of the 70 's/80 's and more like a bad rerun of Mad Max Thunderdome.There is no magic bullet to fix the current world-wide resource depletion that we are experiencing other than " we 're gon na build a metric shitload of nuclear reactors " or " we 'll damn the ever-loving crap out of what little freshwater waterways are left " , or any other number of potential " issues " .
No matter how you slice it , unless we get something like ultracheap fusion under control , we 're pretty much fucked .
" But people will invest in tech blah-blah and it will save the day " .
No it wo n't .
Vested interests have too much money to loose and too much inertia ; they 'll invest in anything under the sun to stop it , including sueing you , bankrupting you , sladering you , or $ { DIETY } forbid , worse .
" But people will do behavior X because the cost of Y will be so high that it suddenly makes sense to change behavior .
" Wrong again .
This is the same classic problem that economists always have - assuming that people are " rational consumers " .
Guess what , they are n't .
Your neighbor will gladly stab you in your sleep to steal a peanut butter jar if people are starving .
Crime rates go UP during hard economic times because - you guessed it - it 's easier to steal than to find a job .
Of course , it would be cheaper to find some way to make a community co-op farm on a plot of land in the city , but where 's the fat profits to be had that you can currently get from outsourcing prisons ?
People are NOT FUCKING RATIONAL .
" But we 've had downturns before " Yup , but if you look closely at each downturn , and overlay them from start to finish , they keep getting longer and longer...last one was years in the making .
The " economy " is oscillating more and more as the system becomes unbalanced .
At what point does it oscillate so badly that you do n't live long enough to see the " recovery " .
" But capitalism will solve this " .
No , it will make it far , far worse , especially combined with America 's stupid penchant for " growth at all costs " .
It will encourage people to consume even more finite resources on the predication that there is an infinite resource base to draw from , because in America 's current economy , everything is about growth .
How do you grow something with finite resources ?
Sooner or later , you run the fuck out .
And guess what , your business shutters and people go without a job .
Hm , where have I heard that ?
Oh , that 's right , the fucking news...PS .
You do know that about 90 \ % of the food that was grown and eventually turned into " something else " in your fridge is directly reliant on nitrogen fertilizer that 's derived from oil , right ?
What , you think that the soil will just provide infinite amounts of resources ?
That the magic nitrogen fairly sprinkles pixie dust on those crops ? PSS .
Go over to http : //www.theoildrum.com/ and get an education that does n't involve twiddling electrons into pretty pictures and fiat money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a single mention of EROEI.
Everyone fails to look at the fact that most of the Ethanol in question is produced with oil products as a basis.
People are WHINING about "high prices".Here's a clue:  Go open your refrigerator door.
Take all the food out.
Throw it away.
Destroy your car.
You cannot go to the grocery store, because for this little thought exercise, it effectively has closed its doors and there is no food on the shelves.
Go outside and look around for food.
Find any?
No?  Hungry?
Wondering just what the fuck you're going to do?Guess what.
That's gonna happen in about two decades, unless we get our collective shit together and figure this out.
Given humanity's great penchant for fucking over long term viability for short term gain, I highly suspect the future will look less and less like the streamlined utopias of the 70's/80's and more like a bad rerun of Mad Max Thunderdome.There is no magic bullet to fix the current world-wide resource depletion that we are experiencing other than "we're gonna build a metric shitload of nuclear reactors" or "we'll damn the ever-loving crap out of what little freshwater waterways are left", or any other number of potential "issues".
No matter how you slice it, unless we get something like ultracheap fusion under control, we're pretty much fucked.
"But people will invest in tech blah-blah and it will save the day".
No it won't.
Vested interests have too much money to loose and too much inertia; they'll invest in anything under the sun to stop it, including sueing you, bankrupting you, sladering you, or ${DIETY} forbid, worse.
"But people will do behavior X because the cost of Y will be so high that it suddenly makes sense to change behavior.
"  Wrong again.
This is the same classic problem that economists always have - assuming that people are "rational consumers".
Guess what, they aren't.
Your neighbor will gladly stab you in your sleep to steal a peanut butter jar if people are starving.
Crime rates go UP during hard economic times because - you guessed it - it's easier to steal than to find a job.
Of course, it would be cheaper to find some way to make a community co-op farm on a plot of land in the city, but where's the fat profits to be had that you can currently get from outsourcing prisons?
People are NOT FUCKING RATIONAL.
"But we've had downturns before"  Yup, but if you look closely at each downturn, and overlay them from start to finish, they keep getting longer and longer...last one was years in the making.
The "economy" is oscillating more and more as the system becomes unbalanced.
At what point does it oscillate so badly that you don't live long enough to see the "recovery".
"But capitalism will solve this".
No, it will make it far, far worse, especially combined with America's stupid penchant for "growth at all costs".
It will encourage people to consume even more finite resources on the predication that there is an infinite resource base to draw from, because in America's current economy, everything is about growth.
How do you grow something with finite resources?
Sooner or later, you run the fuck out.
And guess what, your business shutters and people go without a job.
Hm, where have I heard that?
Oh, that's right, the fucking news...PS.
You do know that about 90\% of the food that was grown and eventually turned into "something else" in your fridge is directly reliant on nitrogen fertilizer that's derived from oil, right?
What, you think that the soil will just provide infinite amounts of resources?
That the magic nitrogen fairly sprinkles pixie dust on those crops?PSS.
Go over to http://www.theoildrum.com/ and get an education that doesn't involve twiddling electrons into pretty pictures and fiat money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162940</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266328380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because production of those foods has been automated, industrialized.  It's easier to subsist on twinkies and microwave dinners and fast food than to work in the fields picking vegetables.  Humans have not yet evolved to take full advantage of the types of industrially-produced foods available.  Hopefully we work to automate the production of healthier alternatives before that happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because production of those foods has been automated , industrialized .
It 's easier to subsist on twinkies and microwave dinners and fast food than to work in the fields picking vegetables .
Humans have not yet evolved to take full advantage of the types of industrially-produced foods available .
Hopefully we work to automate the production of healthier alternatives before that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because production of those foods has been automated, industrialized.
It's easier to subsist on twinkies and microwave dinners and fast food than to work in the fields picking vegetables.
Humans have not yet evolved to take full advantage of the types of industrially-produced foods available.
Hopefully we work to automate the production of healthier alternatives before that happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266322620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey - are you paying for gas? Then its reasonable. When its unreasonable, you DON'T pay for gas. Thats the way it works.</p><p>If you haven't stopped driving your car because you couldn't afford fuel prices - then you really don't have much to complain about. Cars are a luxury item, if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey - are you paying for gas ?
Then its reasonable .
When its unreasonable , you DO N'T pay for gas .
Thats the way it works.If you have n't stopped driving your car because you could n't afford fuel prices - then you really do n't have much to complain about .
Cars are a luxury item , if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work , you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey - are you paying for gas?
Then its reasonable.
When its unreasonable, you DON'T pay for gas.
Thats the way it works.If you haven't stopped driving your car because you couldn't afford fuel prices - then you really don't have much to complain about.
Cars are a luxury item, if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162918</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1266328320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Problem is that the majority of Brazil's soil is actually quite poor and loses it's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons (which is why they keep burning more and more forest).</p></div><p>Well the answer there is "terra preta do indios",  or "black earth of the Indians"</p><blockquote><div><p> The black earth areas, about twice the size of Great Britain, possibly as large as France together had supported as many as three million people - more than had been believed to have ever inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere at any one time. They had realized that the black earth was fertile, but had never imagined that the Amazon basin could be so hugely productive. <a href="http://www.bidstrup.com/carbon.htm" title="bidstrup.com">Saving The Planet While Saving The Farm</a> [bidstrup.com]</p></div> </blockquote><p>Terra petra is fantastically fertile, the Brazilians actually mine this earth for use as potting soil, which is amazing considering most of it's age is measured in millennia not years! Also growing sugarcane doesn't necessarily deplete the soil if the cane field is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar\_cane#Cultivation" title="wikipedia.org">burned</a> [wikipedia.org] and the char left on the ground, some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar\_cane#Nitrogen\_fixation" title="wikipedia.org">varieties are even nitrogen fixing.</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>Additionally converting biomass to char produces distillates that are useful as <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pyrolyisis-terra-preta-could-eliminate-garbage-generate-oil-carbon-sequestration&amp;ref=rss" title="scientificamerican.com">fuel</a> [scientificamerican.com] creating a win-win situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Problem is that the majority of Brazil 's soil is actually quite poor and loses it 's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons ( which is why they keep burning more and more forest ) .Well the answer there is " terra preta do indios " , or " black earth of the Indians " The black earth areas , about twice the size of Great Britain , possibly as large as France together had supported as many as three million people - more than had been believed to have ever inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere at any one time .
They had realized that the black earth was fertile , but had never imagined that the Amazon basin could be so hugely productive .
Saving The Planet While Saving The Farm [ bidstrup.com ] Terra petra is fantastically fertile , the Brazilians actually mine this earth for use as potting soil , which is amazing considering most of it 's age is measured in millennia not years !
Also growing sugarcane does n't necessarily deplete the soil if the cane field is burned [ wikipedia.org ] and the char left on the ground , some varieties are even nitrogen fixing .
[ wikipedia.org ] Additionally converting biomass to char produces distillates that are useful as fuel [ scientificamerican.com ] creating a win-win situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Problem is that the majority of Brazil's soil is actually quite poor and loses it's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons (which is why they keep burning more and more forest).Well the answer there is "terra preta do indios",  or "black earth of the Indians" The black earth areas, about twice the size of Great Britain, possibly as large as France together had supported as many as three million people - more than had been believed to have ever inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere at any one time.
They had realized that the black earth was fertile, but had never imagined that the Amazon basin could be so hugely productive.
Saving The Planet While Saving The Farm [bidstrup.com] Terra petra is fantastically fertile, the Brazilians actually mine this earth for use as potting soil, which is amazing considering most of it's age is measured in millennia not years!
Also growing sugarcane doesn't necessarily deplete the soil if the cane field is burned [wikipedia.org] and the char left on the ground, some varieties are even nitrogen fixing.
[wikipedia.org]Additionally converting biomass to char produces distillates that are useful as fuel [scientificamerican.com] creating a win-win situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162558</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding massive land use changes</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266326220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you want to harvest existing algae -- the basis of most marine food chains -- or fertilize to create new algae, with possible downstream consequences?</p><p>If you think runoff from land-based farms is bad... the ocean is *all* runoff.  If farming the oceans is done, it needs to be approached very slowly and carefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you want to harvest existing algae -- the basis of most marine food chains -- or fertilize to create new algae , with possible downstream consequences ? If you think runoff from land-based farms is bad... the ocean is * all * runoff .
If farming the oceans is done , it needs to be approached very slowly and carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you want to harvest existing algae -- the basis of most marine food chains -- or fertilize to create new algae, with possible downstream consequences?If you think runoff from land-based farms is bad... the ocean is *all* runoff.
If farming the oceans is done, it needs to be approached very slowly and carefully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266329820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People aren't starving because there isn't enough food, they're starving because they can't afford to buy food.</p></div></blockquote><p>False alternative. Generally, people starve because of tyrants starving them, either deliberately or because allowing the poor to get food is less important to the tyrant than whatever his goals are. Very few people are so incompetent that they couldn't get enough food to survive in the absence of a vile government.</p><p>Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person's labor. The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor <b> <i>in the absence of government interference</i> </b> is vast.</p><p>I have no moral or ethical obligation to feed a stranger who is <i>unwilling</i> to give anything in exchange. I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me, a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor, and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are n't starving because there is n't enough food , they 're starving because they ca n't afford to buy food.False alternative .
Generally , people starve because of tyrants starving them , either deliberately or because allowing the poor to get food is less important to the tyrant than whatever his goals are .
Very few people are so incompetent that they could n't get enough food to survive in the absence of a vile government.Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person 's labor .
The number of capitalists that could feed , clothe , and house people well for the price of their labor in the absence of government interference is vast.I have no moral or ethical obligation to feed a stranger who is unwilling to give anything in exchange .
I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me , a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor , and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People aren't starving because there isn't enough food, they're starving because they can't afford to buy food.False alternative.
Generally, people starve because of tyrants starving them, either deliberately or because allowing the poor to get food is less important to the tyrant than whatever his goals are.
Very few people are so incompetent that they couldn't get enough food to survive in the absence of a vile government.Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person's labor.
The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor  in the absence of government interference  is vast.I have no moral or ethical obligation to feed a stranger who is unwilling to give anything in exchange.
I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me, a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor, and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161976</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Aphex Junkie</author>
	<datestamp>1266323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The price of gas is  never going to be reasonable again. Maybe a few dips here and there, but nothing long-term and certainly nothing permanent. Don't bank on some miracle technology to bail you out -- this is a fundamental thermodynamics issue.
<br> <br>
Go look up "peak oil"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The price of gas is never going to be reasonable again .
Maybe a few dips here and there , but nothing long-term and certainly nothing permanent .
Do n't bank on some miracle technology to bail you out -- this is a fundamental thermodynamics issue .
Go look up " peak oil "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price of gas is  never going to be reasonable again.
Maybe a few dips here and there, but nothing long-term and certainly nothing permanent.
Don't bank on some miracle technology to bail you out -- this is a fundamental thermodynamics issue.
Go look up "peak oil"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1266324480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.</p></div><p>Ah yes, the inevitable claim that magic market pixies will fix everything.</p><p>The fact is that world food production -- never mind <i>potential</i> production -- is already more than adequate to feed everyone. Market economics alone, however, is inadequate to distribute the food. People aren't starving because there isn't enough food, they're starving because <i>they can't afford to buy food.</i> There's no profit to be had in giving food to people who can't pay for it, so they go without.</p><p>I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable, but not everything worth doing is profitable. The market is amoral and devoid of compassion. That's not necessarily a bad thing by itself, but it becomes so when we surrender every ethical obligation to the test of profitability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term , but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.Ah yes , the inevitable claim that magic market pixies will fix everything.The fact is that world food production -- never mind potential production -- is already more than adequate to feed everyone .
Market economics alone , however , is inadequate to distribute the food .
People are n't starving because there is n't enough food , they 're starving because they ca n't afford to buy food .
There 's no profit to be had in giving food to people who ca n't pay for it , so they go without.I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable , but not everything worth doing is profitable .
The market is amoral and devoid of compassion .
That 's not necessarily a bad thing by itself , but it becomes so when we surrender every ethical obligation to the test of profitability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.Ah yes, the inevitable claim that magic market pixies will fix everything.The fact is that world food production -- never mind potential production -- is already more than adequate to feed everyone.
Market economics alone, however, is inadequate to distribute the food.
People aren't starving because there isn't enough food, they're starving because they can't afford to buy food.
There's no profit to be had in giving food to people who can't pay for it, so they go without.I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable, but not everything worth doing is profitable.
The market is amoral and devoid of compassion.
That's not necessarily a bad thing by itself, but it becomes so when we surrender every ethical obligation to the test of profitability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31174762</id>
	<title>Re:Gasification and other Enginuity</title>
	<author>stdarg</author>
	<datestamp>1265057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens when you heat it to 500 C?</p><p>This sounds like a diy-able experiment, have you actually tried it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens when you heat it to 500 C ? This sounds like a diy-able experiment , have you actually tried it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens when you heat it to 500 C?This sounds like a diy-able experiment, have you actually tried it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162160</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266324120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b> <i>This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger."</i> </b> </p><p>They JUST figured this out!!!????</p><p>This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!</p><p>I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!  NOT a major food source!</p><p>Glad someone is finally waking up.</p></div><p>The US could easily use sugar cane. Write your congress to eliminate the sugar tarrifs that the US sugar industry has levied on imports. If these tariffs were lifted then we can make ethanol from sugar, fun poor countries rather than our enemies, and actually have sugar in our foods rather than corn syrup.</p><p>Big Government Enables Big Corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger .
" They JUST figured this out ! ! ! ? ? ?
? This is the problem with the green lords... they do n't think ahead of the unintended consequences ! I 've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America ( Brazil ?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE !
NOT a major food source ! Glad someone is finally waking up.The US could easily use sugar cane .
Write your congress to eliminate the sugar tarrifs that the US sugar industry has levied on imports .
If these tariffs were lifted then we can make ethanol from sugar , fun poor countries rather than our enemies , and actually have sugar in our foods rather than corn syrup.Big Government Enables Big Corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger.
"  They JUST figured this out!!!???
?This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?
) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE!
NOT a major food source!Glad someone is finally waking up.The US could easily use sugar cane.
Write your congress to eliminate the sugar tarrifs that the US sugar industry has levied on imports.
If these tariffs were lifted then we can make ethanol from sugar, fun poor countries rather than our enemies, and actually have sugar in our foods rather than corn syrup.Big Government Enables Big Corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162026</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost.  It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability.  Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel.</p> </div><p>You've got very wrong information here. Just 8 million cars in Brazil? The article said 8 million cars <em>running on ethanol</em>, not 8 million cars overall. There are almost 28 million cars running now. 25\% is the amount of ethanol in the gas sold here. 85\% of the current Brazilian car production is comprised of flex-fuel cars, that run on ethanol, gas or any mixture of them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.</p></div><p>
That's right, but most of the deforestation is done for wood and to open land to cattle, not agriculture. The Amazon land is not good for agriculture.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main issue with biofuels is n't really food or cost .
It 's about land use , energy efficiency and sustainability .
Brazil is usually given as a great example , but they have only 8 million cars , which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel , the rest is still gasoline or diesel .
You 've got very wrong information here .
Just 8 million cars in Brazil ?
The article said 8 million cars running on ethanol , not 8 million cars overall .
There are almost 28 million cars running now .
25 \ % is the amount of ethanol in the gas sold here .
85 \ % of the current Brazilian car production is comprised of flex-fuel cars , that run on ethanol , gas or any mixture of them.And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world .
That 's right , but most of the deforestation is done for wood and to open land to cattle , not agriculture .
The Amazon land is not good for agriculture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost.
It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability.
Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel.
You've got very wrong information here.
Just 8 million cars in Brazil?
The article said 8 million cars running on ethanol, not 8 million cars overall.
There are almost 28 million cars running now.
25\% is the amount of ethanol in the gas sold here.
85\% of the current Brazilian car production is comprised of flex-fuel cars, that run on ethanol, gas or any mixture of them.And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world.
That's right, but most of the deforestation is done for wood and to open land to cattle, not agriculture.
The Amazon land is not good for agriculture.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164424</id>
	<title>Doesn't require growing new crops</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266338940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is encouraging, because there's plenty of cellulose available as agricultural waste.  Corncobs, corn husks, straw, bagasse (sugar cane after sugar extraction), and similar trash are all mostly cellulose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is encouraging , because there 's plenty of cellulose available as agricultural waste .
Corncobs , corn husks , straw , bagasse ( sugar cane after sugar extraction ) , and similar trash are all mostly cellulose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is encouraging, because there's plenty of cellulose available as agricultural waste.
Corncobs, corn husks, straw, bagasse (sugar cane after sugar extraction), and similar trash are all mostly cellulose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162998</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266328680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and not least animal suffering.</p></div><p>Just for that dumbass fucking comment, I'm going to go out and kick a puppy for each vegetarian I know. "Baaaaawww, don't eat the animals, it's CRUEL!"</p><p>Christ you "ethical" vegetarians are some of the dumbest shits I've ever met.</p><p>And now your "I'm persecuted because I'm right" complex will kick and, and your reflex will be to try and justify your position from a moral high ground, rather than trying to rationally, logically, and intelligently explain how cows are less exploited when we use them just for milk products, than when we also kill them for meat.</p><p>And if you're proposing a *vegan* diet, not just vegetarianism, then you can add on a few more choice descriptors of your lack of intelligence. Humans are not built for a vegan diet. I could roll with vegetarian, but vegan? Doesn't actually work in reality. You're only fucking up your own body.</p><p>Wait, go do that. Remove yourself from the gene pool faster please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and not least animal suffering.Just for that dumbass fucking comment , I 'm going to go out and kick a puppy for each vegetarian I know .
" Baaaaawww , do n't eat the animals , it 's CRUEL !
" Christ you " ethical " vegetarians are some of the dumbest shits I 've ever met.And now your " I 'm persecuted because I 'm right " complex will kick and , and your reflex will be to try and justify your position from a moral high ground , rather than trying to rationally , logically , and intelligently explain how cows are less exploited when we use them just for milk products , than when we also kill them for meat.And if you 're proposing a * vegan * diet , not just vegetarianism , then you can add on a few more choice descriptors of your lack of intelligence .
Humans are not built for a vegan diet .
I could roll with vegetarian , but vegan ?
Does n't actually work in reality .
You 're only fucking up your own body.Wait , go do that .
Remove yourself from the gene pool faster please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and not least animal suffering.Just for that dumbass fucking comment, I'm going to go out and kick a puppy for each vegetarian I know.
"Baaaaawww, don't eat the animals, it's CRUEL!
"Christ you "ethical" vegetarians are some of the dumbest shits I've ever met.And now your "I'm persecuted because I'm right" complex will kick and, and your reflex will be to try and justify your position from a moral high ground, rather than trying to rationally, logically, and intelligently explain how cows are less exploited when we use them just for milk products, than when we also kill them for meat.And if you're proposing a *vegan* diet, not just vegetarianism, then you can add on a few more choice descriptors of your lack of intelligence.
Humans are not built for a vegan diet.
I could roll with vegetarian, but vegan?
Doesn't actually work in reality.
You're only fucking up your own body.Wait, go do that.
Remove yourself from the gene pool faster please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164610</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266340140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of people think that reducing the number of cars is the solution.

In reality, the world needs and area 190 miles by 190 miles of desert to replace all its oil consumption with synthetic fuels.

Now, why don't you try to create services to reduce the number of cars in the world? Like carpool services, buses, trains, etc.? You can make money and save the environment. Try it - youl'll like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people think that reducing the number of cars is the solution .
In reality , the world needs and area 190 miles by 190 miles of desert to replace all its oil consumption with synthetic fuels .
Now , why do n't you try to create services to reduce the number of cars in the world ?
Like carpool services , buses , trains , etc. ?
You can make money and save the environment .
Try it - youl 'll like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people think that reducing the number of cars is the solution.
In reality, the world needs and area 190 miles by 190 miles of desert to replace all its oil consumption with synthetic fuels.
Now, why don't you try to create services to reduce the number of cars in the world?
Like carpool services, buses, trains, etc.?
You can make money and save the environment.
Try it - youl'll like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162788</id>
	<title>"When it's unreasonable, you DON'T pay for gas."</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1266327600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"When it's unreasonable, you DON'T pay for gas."</p><p>I guess that same argument works for kidney dialysis, too, right?  The people who aren't paying for it because they can't afford the prices are doing it out of choice... not because they live where they can afford to live, and work where there's a job available.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" When it 's unreasonable , you DO N'T pay for gas .
" I guess that same argument works for kidney dialysis , too , right ?
The people who are n't paying for it because they ca n't afford the prices are doing it out of choice... not because they live where they can afford to live , and work where there 's a job available.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"When it's unreasonable, you DON'T pay for gas.
"I guess that same argument works for kidney dialysis, too, right?
The people who aren't paying for it because they can't afford the prices are doing it out of choice... not because they live where they can afford to live, and work where there's a job available.-- Terry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163338</id>
	<title>Great source of Cellulous</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1266331200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Industrial Hemp.<br> <br>4 times the yield per acre than trees, only takes one season while trees take years, needs no fertilizers or insecticides, very low THC levels.<br> <br>I leave the Googling to those interested in knowing more, those not interested wouldn't follow the link anyway having bought into the fear mongering media hype about it.<br> <br>cue lame jokes about getting high smoking it, tho industrial hemp will only give you a head ache if you do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Industrial Hemp .
4 times the yield per acre than trees , only takes one season while trees take years , needs no fertilizers or insecticides , very low THC levels .
I leave the Googling to those interested in knowing more , those not interested would n't follow the link anyway having bought into the fear mongering media hype about it .
cue lame jokes about getting high smoking it , tho industrial hemp will only give you a head ache if you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Industrial Hemp.
4 times the yield per acre than trees, only takes one season while trees take years, needs no fertilizers or insecticides, very low THC levels.
I leave the Googling to those interested in knowing more, those not interested wouldn't follow the link anyway having bought into the fear mongering media hype about it.
cue lame jokes about getting high smoking it, tho industrial hemp will only give you a head ache if you do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166358</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even in towns with a transit system (i'm in calfornia, you can read my sibling post for more details there), taking public transit can turn what would be a 10 hour day with commute (counting lunch) into a 12 hour day or longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in towns with a transit system ( i 'm in calfornia , you can read my sibling post for more details there ) , taking public transit can turn what would be a 10 hour day with commute ( counting lunch ) into a 12 hour day or longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in towns with a transit system (i'm in calfornia, you can read my sibling post for more details there), taking public transit can turn what would be a 10 hour day with commute (counting lunch) into a 12 hour day or longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162278</id>
	<title>Duckweed Perhaps</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1266324720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been following the biofuels industry pretty closely. How about Duckweed? Like algae it does not compete with cropland, it grows fast and unlike algae, it is easy to harvest (just skim off the top rather than concentrating water). Also easier to deal with "weeds" (algae ponds get contaminated by other species and this is hard to control). Duckweed is mostly cellulose and so fits into a feedstream amenable to the fermentation described by the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following the biofuels industry pretty closely .
How about Duckweed ?
Like algae it does not compete with cropland , it grows fast and unlike algae , it is easy to harvest ( just skim off the top rather than concentrating water ) .
Also easier to deal with " weeds " ( algae ponds get contaminated by other species and this is hard to control ) .
Duckweed is mostly cellulose and so fits into a feedstream amenable to the fermentation described by the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following the biofuels industry pretty closely.
How about Duckweed?
Like algae it does not compete with cropland, it grows fast and unlike algae, it is easy to harvest (just skim off the top rather than concentrating water).
Also easier to deal with "weeds" (algae ponds get contaminated by other species and this is hard to control).
Duckweed is mostly cellulose and so fits into a feedstream amenable to the fermentation described by the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168952</id>
	<title>The other side...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am curious about the other side of the fuel supply question for combustion engines, both internal and external; where does the oxygen come from?  Does the earth have a limitless supply of O2?  All the schemes I've seen assume that oxygen is available from the atmosphere no matter what, and produce water and CO2 as byproducts.  Both these compounds are extremely stable and it's requires a fair amount of energy and/or finesse to separate them for the O2 re-supply cycle to continue.  The forests and oceans have helped mitigate the effects of CO2 in the past, but they have limited capacity and recent humanity activity has diminished their ability to function in this regard.  What we need are energy systems that don't use chemical combustion, at least not as a long term solution, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and - dare I say it - nuclear.  Our efforts and money should be spent developing these and not on more hydrocarbon based systems.   Let's hear it for "clean" coal...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious about the other side of the fuel supply question for combustion engines , both internal and external ; where does the oxygen come from ?
Does the earth have a limitless supply of O2 ?
All the schemes I 've seen assume that oxygen is available from the atmosphere no matter what , and produce water and CO2 as byproducts .
Both these compounds are extremely stable and it 's requires a fair amount of energy and/or finesse to separate them for the O2 re-supply cycle to continue .
The forests and oceans have helped mitigate the effects of CO2 in the past , but they have limited capacity and recent humanity activity has diminished their ability to function in this regard .
What we need are energy systems that do n't use chemical combustion , at least not as a long term solution , such as solar , wind , tidal , geothermal , and - dare I say it - nuclear .
Our efforts and money should be spent developing these and not on more hydrocarbon based systems .
Let 's hear it for " clean " coal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious about the other side of the fuel supply question for combustion engines, both internal and external; where does the oxygen come from?
Does the earth have a limitless supply of O2?
All the schemes I've seen assume that oxygen is available from the atmosphere no matter what, and produce water and CO2 as byproducts.
Both these compounds are extremely stable and it's requires a fair amount of energy and/or finesse to separate them for the O2 re-supply cycle to continue.
The forests and oceans have helped mitigate the effects of CO2 in the past, but they have limited capacity and recent humanity activity has diminished their ability to function in this regard.
What we need are energy systems that don't use chemical combustion, at least not as a long term solution, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and - dare I say it - nuclear.
Our efforts and money should be spent developing these and not on more hydrocarbon based systems.
Let's hear it for "clean" coal...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882</id>
	<title>Nothing about the fuel itself...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1266322800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see speculation on the cost of the fuel, but nothing whatsoever on the performance of it.  This makes my suspicion meter go into alarm mode...</p><p>Though, to be fair, ethanol suffers from the same issue.</p><p>Looking at the <a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=28726" title="fueleconomy.gov">2010 Town and Country</a> [fueleconomy.gov] (a similar vehicle to my own Flex-Fuel van), I see these ratings:</p><p>E85 - 17mpg</p><p>Gas - 24mpg</p><p>Adjusted into dollars-per-hundred-miles, <a href="http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/" title="fuelgaugereport.com">using these prices</a> [fuelgaugereport.com], that's something like:</p><p>E85 - $14.13 ($2.403/g)</p><p>Gas - $10.87 ($2.610/g)</p><p>So even though the price at the pump is less, I'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.</p><p>Unless this new fuel is better than E85, I can't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors.  Now if it is somehow better than E85, then that would be some good news.  Alas, the story is mute on this topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see speculation on the cost of the fuel , but nothing whatsoever on the performance of it .
This makes my suspicion meter go into alarm mode...Though , to be fair , ethanol suffers from the same issue.Looking at the 2010 Town and Country [ fueleconomy.gov ] ( a similar vehicle to my own Flex-Fuel van ) , I see these ratings : E85 - 17mpgGas - 24mpgAdjusted into dollars-per-hundred-miles , using these prices [ fuelgaugereport.com ] , that 's something like : E85 - $ 14.13 ( $ 2.403/g ) Gas - $ 10.87 ( $ 2.610/g ) So even though the price at the pump is less , I 'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.Unless this new fuel is better than E85 , I ca n't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors .
Now if it is somehow better than E85 , then that would be some good news .
Alas , the story is mute on this topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see speculation on the cost of the fuel, but nothing whatsoever on the performance of it.
This makes my suspicion meter go into alarm mode...Though, to be fair, ethanol suffers from the same issue.Looking at the 2010 Town and Country [fueleconomy.gov] (a similar vehicle to my own Flex-Fuel van), I see these ratings:E85 - 17mpgGas - 24mpgAdjusted into dollars-per-hundred-miles, using these prices [fuelgaugereport.com], that's something like:E85 - $14.13 ($2.403/g)Gas - $10.87 ($2.610/g)So even though the price at the pump is less, I'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.Unless this new fuel is better than E85, I can't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors.
Now if it is somehow better than E85, then that would be some good news.
Alas, the story is mute on this topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167198</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable, but not everything worth doing is profitable.</p></div><p>I wish the uber-state ideologues would figure out that not all the non-profitable things that need to be done have to be done by the state. Generosity is good (even necessary) but it's so much better when you're generous with your own money instead of other people's.</p><p>How many of those who advocate government health care reform in the US right now have ever taken it upon themselves to pay someone else's medical expense? I give to charities, particularly for education, I've taken homeless people in for extended periods (before I was married). Free market economics is clearly superior in efficiency of distribution of resources. Efficient distribution is not the only goal that needs pursuing as it does leave some without, but destroying the efficiencies of the market in an attempt to meet those needs leaves society as a whole poorer.</p><p>Personal generosity builds society. Forced redistribution tears society down. People aren't grateful when they receive what was taken from their neighbor by force. They resent those who have more than them and demand redistribution, and those taxed resent and despise the freeloaders. How different the relationship between giver and receiver is than the relationship between plundered and plunderer.</p><p>That said, if you don't have forced redistribution you had better come across with the generosity or you will have grave injustice and eventually revolution. Or demands for forced redistribution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable , but not everything worth doing is profitable.I wish the uber-state ideologues would figure out that not all the non-profitable things that need to be done have to be done by the state .
Generosity is good ( even necessary ) but it 's so much better when you 're generous with your own money instead of other people 's.How many of those who advocate government health care reform in the US right now have ever taken it upon themselves to pay someone else 's medical expense ?
I give to charities , particularly for education , I 've taken homeless people in for extended periods ( before I was married ) .
Free market economics is clearly superior in efficiency of distribution of resources .
Efficient distribution is not the only goal that needs pursuing as it does leave some without , but destroying the efficiencies of the market in an attempt to meet those needs leaves society as a whole poorer.Personal generosity builds society .
Forced redistribution tears society down .
People are n't grateful when they receive what was taken from their neighbor by force .
They resent those who have more than them and demand redistribution , and those taxed resent and despise the freeloaders .
How different the relationship between giver and receiver is than the relationship between plundered and plunderer.That said , if you do n't have forced redistribution you had better come across with the generosity or you will have grave injustice and eventually revolution .
Or demands for forced redistribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable, but not everything worth doing is profitable.I wish the uber-state ideologues would figure out that not all the non-profitable things that need to be done have to be done by the state.
Generosity is good (even necessary) but it's so much better when you're generous with your own money instead of other people's.How many of those who advocate government health care reform in the US right now have ever taken it upon themselves to pay someone else's medical expense?
I give to charities, particularly for education, I've taken homeless people in for extended periods (before I was married).
Free market economics is clearly superior in efficiency of distribution of resources.
Efficient distribution is not the only goal that needs pursuing as it does leave some without, but destroying the efficiencies of the market in an attempt to meet those needs leaves society as a whole poorer.Personal generosity builds society.
Forced redistribution tears society down.
People aren't grateful when they receive what was taken from their neighbor by force.
They resent those who have more than them and demand redistribution, and those taxed resent and despise the freeloaders.
How different the relationship between giver and receiver is than the relationship between plundered and plunderer.That said, if you don't have forced redistribution you had better come across with the generosity or you will have grave injustice and eventually revolution.
Or demands for forced redistribution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162254</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266324540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.</p></div><p>That's quite the assumption. I've lived in a few towns that, while large/spaced out/etc enough that I needed a car to get to work, didn't offer adequate/any public transportation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work , you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.That 's quite the assumption .
I 've lived in a few towns that , while large/spaced out/etc enough that I needed a car to get to work , did n't offer adequate/any public transportation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.That's quite the assumption.
I've lived in a few towns that, while large/spaced out/etc enough that I needed a car to get to work, didn't offer adequate/any public transportation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162468</id>
	<title>Re:Biofuels</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1266325620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Biofuels cause food shortages because a farmer in the Third World will make more of a profit growing and selling fuel crops than food crops. This leads to the price of food climbing for the locals and for aid agencies whose food supply costs spike.</p><p>Its not about thinking it could cause a shortage, its causing price spikes and shortages. For something really scary, look into whats happening with tequila prices and the long term viability of tequila as farmers stop planting agave.</p><p><a href="http://vivirlatino.com/2007/05/30/ethanol-to-lead-to-tequila-shortage.php" title="vivirlatino.com" rel="nofollow">http://vivirlatino.com/2007/05/30/ethanol-to-lead-to-tequila-shortage.php</a> [vivirlatino.com]<br><a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/17/20080817tequila0817.html" title="azcentral.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/17/20080817tequila0817.html</a> [azcentral.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biofuels cause food shortages because a farmer in the Third World will make more of a profit growing and selling fuel crops than food crops .
This leads to the price of food climbing for the locals and for aid agencies whose food supply costs spike.Its not about thinking it could cause a shortage , its causing price spikes and shortages .
For something really scary , look into whats happening with tequila prices and the long term viability of tequila as farmers stop planting agave.http : //vivirlatino.com/2007/05/30/ethanol-to-lead-to-tequila-shortage.php [ vivirlatino.com ] http : //www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/17/20080817tequila0817.html [ azcentral.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biofuels cause food shortages because a farmer in the Third World will make more of a profit growing and selling fuel crops than food crops.
This leads to the price of food climbing for the locals and for aid agencies whose food supply costs spike.Its not about thinking it could cause a shortage, its causing price spikes and shortages.
For something really scary, look into whats happening with tequila prices and the long term viability of tequila as farmers stop planting agave.http://vivirlatino.com/2007/05/30/ethanol-to-lead-to-tequila-shortage.php [vivirlatino.com]http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/08/17/20080817tequila0817.html [azcentral.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161916</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266322980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if you would have paid attention, almost no "green-lords" (not sure who falls under that definition, but I'm going to assume the usual suspects of WWF, Sierra Club and other environmental organizations of the same ilk) ever endorsed the use of corn kernels as a source for biofuel. Almost everyone saw that coming. The only ones who uniformly didn't see it coming (or at least didn't care) were the corn producers and their lobbies.</p><p>If you even think for one second that the environmental lobbies somehow have more pull than the agricultural lobbies, you've just not been paying attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you would have paid attention , almost no " green-lords " ( not sure who falls under that definition , but I 'm going to assume the usual suspects of WWF , Sierra Club and other environmental organizations of the same ilk ) ever endorsed the use of corn kernels as a source for biofuel .
Almost everyone saw that coming .
The only ones who uniformly did n't see it coming ( or at least did n't care ) were the corn producers and their lobbies.If you even think for one second that the environmental lobbies somehow have more pull than the agricultural lobbies , you 've just not been paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you would have paid attention, almost no "green-lords" (not sure who falls under that definition, but I'm going to assume the usual suspects of WWF, Sierra Club and other environmental organizations of the same ilk) ever endorsed the use of corn kernels as a source for biofuel.
Almost everyone saw that coming.
The only ones who uniformly didn't see it coming (or at least didn't care) were the corn producers and their lobbies.If you even think for one second that the environmental lobbies somehow have more pull than the agricultural lobbies, you've just not been paying attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162234</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266324480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue just the opposite.</p><p>The best way for 3rd world/developing countries to make the transition to a developed nation is through agriculture.</p><p>The US, with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US. So much so, that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets. By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports, we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries. Thus resulting in no net change in world wide food availability.</p><p>Most of the articles I've seen that claim corn based ethanol would lead to food shortages take an absurd view of fuels. Sure, if every single car that is currently running on gasoline today were replaced with a comparable car that ran on ethanol, yes, there would be a huge impact. But lets be realistic, no serious studies have ever pointed to a 100\% replacement of gasoline with ethanol, and the idea that every car would be converted on a single day is ludicrous.</p><p>No single fuel will be the answer to our transportation problems. Petrol, bio-diesel, algae, ethanol, butane/propane/natural gas, electric, hybrids, etc... A blend of all will make up the future fuel markets. And as any one becomes more expensive, the others will become more popular.</p><p>Assuming ethanol takes off to the point that it impacts food availability, a number of things will likely happen:<br>1) The Feds will reduce subsidies for growing fuel-corn<br>2) The Feds will increase subsidies for growing consumable corn<br>3) The price of imported corn would be lower than local corn and investment in international agriculture would rise.</p><p>By all means, tear down the Ethanol arguments using valid arguments, like water contamination, transportation issues, and the horrible efficiencies of "flex-fuel" vehicles. Not to mention the agricultural impacts of requiring nitrogen based fertilizers and the relatively low yield per acre. But leave the food argument buried, it's just silly.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue just the opposite.The best way for 3rd world/developing countries to make the transition to a developed nation is through agriculture.The US , with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US .
So much so , that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets .
By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports , we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries .
Thus resulting in no net change in world wide food availability.Most of the articles I 've seen that claim corn based ethanol would lead to food shortages take an absurd view of fuels .
Sure , if every single car that is currently running on gasoline today were replaced with a comparable car that ran on ethanol , yes , there would be a huge impact .
But lets be realistic , no serious studies have ever pointed to a 100 \ % replacement of gasoline with ethanol , and the idea that every car would be converted on a single day is ludicrous.No single fuel will be the answer to our transportation problems .
Petrol , bio-diesel , algae , ethanol , butane/propane/natural gas , electric , hybrids , etc... A blend of all will make up the future fuel markets .
And as any one becomes more expensive , the others will become more popular.Assuming ethanol takes off to the point that it impacts food availability , a number of things will likely happen : 1 ) The Feds will reduce subsidies for growing fuel-corn2 ) The Feds will increase subsidies for growing consumable corn3 ) The price of imported corn would be lower than local corn and investment in international agriculture would rise.By all means , tear down the Ethanol arguments using valid arguments , like water contamination , transportation issues , and the horrible efficiencies of " flex-fuel " vehicles .
Not to mention the agricultural impacts of requiring nitrogen based fertilizers and the relatively low yield per acre .
But leave the food argument buried , it 's just silly.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue just the opposite.The best way for 3rd world/developing countries to make the transition to a developed nation is through agriculture.The US, with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US.
So much so, that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets.
By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports, we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries.
Thus resulting in no net change in world wide food availability.Most of the articles I've seen that claim corn based ethanol would lead to food shortages take an absurd view of fuels.
Sure, if every single car that is currently running on gasoline today were replaced with a comparable car that ran on ethanol, yes, there would be a huge impact.
But lets be realistic, no serious studies have ever pointed to a 100\% replacement of gasoline with ethanol, and the idea that every car would be converted on a single day is ludicrous.No single fuel will be the answer to our transportation problems.
Petrol, bio-diesel, algae, ethanol, butane/propane/natural gas, electric, hybrids, etc... A blend of all will make up the future fuel markets.
And as any one becomes more expensive, the others will become more popular.Assuming ethanol takes off to the point that it impacts food availability, a number of things will likely happen:1) The Feds will reduce subsidies for growing fuel-corn2) The Feds will increase subsidies for growing consumable corn3) The price of imported corn would be lower than local corn and investment in international agriculture would rise.By all means, tear down the Ethanol arguments using valid arguments, like water contamination, transportation issues, and the horrible efficiencies of "flex-fuel" vehicles.
Not to mention the agricultural impacts of requiring nitrogen based fertilizers and the relatively low yield per acre.
But leave the food argument buried, it's just silly.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162894</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266328200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First post!</p><p>And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road, when will my gas prices become reasonable (for the US) again?  I'm tired of $2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it.</p></div><p>Poor bastard ! Here in Australia on cheap petrol day we can get ours for $1.22/lt which works out to over $4.60 per Gallon.<br>Check out <a href="http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/" title="aaireland.ie" rel="nofollow">this</a> [aaireland.ie] page to see how good you have it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First post ! And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road , when will my gas prices become reasonable ( for the US ) again ?
I 'm tired of $ 2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it.Poor bastard !
Here in Australia on cheap petrol day we can get ours for $ 1.22/lt which works out to over $ 4.60 per Gallon.Check out this [ aaireland.ie ] page to see how good you have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post!And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road, when will my gas prices become reasonable (for the US) again?
I'm tired of $2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it.Poor bastard !
Here in Australia on cheap petrol day we can get ours for $1.22/lt which works out to over $4.60 per Gallon.Check out this [aaireland.ie] page to see how good you have it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163444</id>
	<title>Who's the real 40,000 Ton Metallic Monster?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266332100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a good friend who happened to also be an exiled member of Liberia's parliament.  He said the major problem they were having were as follows:<br> <br>
Due to the currency trade, it costs about 1 million dollars (adjusted) for them to buy a tractor to farm their lands.  Is that unreachable?  No.  Is it ridiculously overpriced?  Yes.  Do multiple families have to pull together in order to purchase a single tractor?  Obviously.<br> <br>
Once the people have a tractor, and something breaks on it, they have to hire help, and that help has to purchase parts from out of the country -- which screws them again on their currency trade.  This maladjusted currency business affects them on their importans and it affects them on their exports.<br> <br>
"Well, what if a kind, European business decided to dump a bunch of tractors on the people and buy up their farmland and run a business from it?" you may ask.  That sounds like a good idea, until the business sees that every Euro they make doing business with the Liberians could be 10 Euros if they turned around and sold their produce to their own countries!<br> <br>
In this case, the tyrant is the European Union and their currency exchange rates with the African nations, moreso than dictators who can afford to feed themselves, but stare at a steep wall when it comes to the international commerce they would need in order to supply their own agricultural revolutions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a good friend who happened to also be an exiled member of Liberia 's parliament .
He said the major problem they were having were as follows : Due to the currency trade , it costs about 1 million dollars ( adjusted ) for them to buy a tractor to farm their lands .
Is that unreachable ?
No. Is it ridiculously overpriced ?
Yes. Do multiple families have to pull together in order to purchase a single tractor ?
Obviously . Once the people have a tractor , and something breaks on it , they have to hire help , and that help has to purchase parts from out of the country -- which screws them again on their currency trade .
This maladjusted currency business affects them on their importans and it affects them on their exports .
" Well , what if a kind , European business decided to dump a bunch of tractors on the people and buy up their farmland and run a business from it ?
" you may ask .
That sounds like a good idea , until the business sees that every Euro they make doing business with the Liberians could be 10 Euros if they turned around and sold their produce to their own countries !
In this case , the tyrant is the European Union and their currency exchange rates with the African nations , moreso than dictators who can afford to feed themselves , but stare at a steep wall when it comes to the international commerce they would need in order to supply their own agricultural revolutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a good friend who happened to also be an exiled member of Liberia's parliament.
He said the major problem they were having were as follows: 
Due to the currency trade, it costs about 1 million dollars (adjusted) for them to buy a tractor to farm their lands.
Is that unreachable?
No.  Is it ridiculously overpriced?
Yes.  Do multiple families have to pull together in order to purchase a single tractor?
Obviously. 
Once the people have a tractor, and something breaks on it, they have to hire help, and that help has to purchase parts from out of the country -- which screws them again on their currency trade.
This maladjusted currency business affects them on their importans and it affects them on their exports.
"Well, what if a kind, European business decided to dump a bunch of tractors on the people and buy up their farmland and run a business from it?
" you may ask.
That sounds like a good idea, until the business sees that every Euro they make doing business with the Liberians could be 10 Euros if they turned around and sold their produce to their own countries!
In this case, the tyrant is the European Union and their currency exchange rates with the African nations, moreso than dictators who can afford to feed themselves, but stare at a steep wall when it comes to the international commerce they would need in order to supply their own agricultural revolutions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162510</id>
	<title>Re:Step in the Right Direction</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1266325920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>After all, who eats the corn cob?</p></div></blockquote><p>Livestock. In fact, the raise in corn prices caused a spike in beef, poultry and pork prices, and also forced many dairies out of business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , who eats the corn cob ? Livestock .
In fact , the raise in corn prices caused a spike in beef , poultry and pork prices , and also forced many dairies out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, who eats the corn cob?Livestock.
In fact, the raise in corn prices caused a spike in beef, poultry and pork prices, and also forced many dairies out of business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166086</id>
	<title>Re:Some questions</title>
	<author>mmontour</author>
	<datestamp>1265055840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There will be a distillation stage in production, which requires a heat source. Where will they get this heat? (Hopefully, by burning some fraction of the ethanol they've just produced, or some of the feedstock.</p></div><p>Burning the ethanol product would be, shall we say, counter-productive. You might be able to get some heat from burning other volatiles produced during the fermentation process (like methanol).</p><p>It may be possible to use waste heat from some other industrial process located next to your distillation facility (e.g. steam exiting from a power-plant turbine at greater than 100 degrees C). You could burn agricultural waste, household garbage, old tires, pine-beetle-infested trees, or any other cheap and locally-available fuel.</p><p>A more sophisticated method would be to use a heat pump. It's not that big of a temperature difference between the boiling point of water and the condensing point of ethanol. You can move a lot of heat with a relatively small amount of mechanical work. This can be done by compressing the alcohol vapor itself (so that it condenses above 100 degrees C, boiling water in the process) or you could use a working fluid like hexane that had an appropriate boiling point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be a distillation stage in production , which requires a heat source .
Where will they get this heat ?
( Hopefully , by burning some fraction of the ethanol they 've just produced , or some of the feedstock.Burning the ethanol product would be , shall we say , counter-productive .
You might be able to get some heat from burning other volatiles produced during the fermentation process ( like methanol ) .It may be possible to use waste heat from some other industrial process located next to your distillation facility ( e.g .
steam exiting from a power-plant turbine at greater than 100 degrees C ) .
You could burn agricultural waste , household garbage , old tires , pine-beetle-infested trees , or any other cheap and locally-available fuel.A more sophisticated method would be to use a heat pump .
It 's not that big of a temperature difference between the boiling point of water and the condensing point of ethanol .
You can move a lot of heat with a relatively small amount of mechanical work .
This can be done by compressing the alcohol vapor itself ( so that it condenses above 100 degrees C , boiling water in the process ) or you could use a working fluid like hexane that had an appropriate boiling point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be a distillation stage in production, which requires a heat source.
Where will they get this heat?
(Hopefully, by burning some fraction of the ethanol they've just produced, or some of the feedstock.Burning the ethanol product would be, shall we say, counter-productive.
You might be able to get some heat from burning other volatiles produced during the fermentation process (like methanol).It may be possible to use waste heat from some other industrial process located next to your distillation facility (e.g.
steam exiting from a power-plant turbine at greater than 100 degrees C).
You could burn agricultural waste, household garbage, old tires, pine-beetle-infested trees, or any other cheap and locally-available fuel.A more sophisticated method would be to use a heat pump.
It's not that big of a temperature difference between the boiling point of water and the condensing point of ethanol.
You can move a lot of heat with a relatively small amount of mechanical work.
This can be done by compressing the alcohol vapor itself (so that it condenses above 100 degrees C, boiling water in the process) or you could use a working fluid like hexane that had an appropriate boiling point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163120</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>vandan</author>
	<datestamp>1266329520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Green lords? Homepage link? Signature? You're a nutcase mate. Either that, or on the payroll of a big oil co, or both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Green lords ?
Homepage link ?
Signature ? You 're a nutcase mate .
Either that , or on the payroll of a big oil co , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Green lords?
Homepage link?
Signature? You're a nutcase mate.
Either that, or on the payroll of a big oil co, or both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163166</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't anyone realize that</title>
	<author>vandan</author>
	<datestamp>1266329880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering how long it would take before someone with intelligence posted to Slashdot. Unfortunately your solution doesn't fit in the pro-consumption market economy, or in the minds of the wages slaves conditioned to live in said environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering how long it would take before someone with intelligence posted to Slashdot .
Unfortunately your solution does n't fit in the pro-consumption market economy , or in the minds of the wages slaves conditioned to live in said environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering how long it would take before someone with intelligence posted to Slashdot.
Unfortunately your solution doesn't fit in the pro-consumption market economy, or in the minds of the wages slaves conditioned to live in said environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165812</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, you analysis is not a very comprehensive one. There is literature on such things though (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/78/3/660S/T1).</p><p>It is not nutrients. Proteins are more of a problem. And since people in the US (and elsewere) eat a lot of meat, most of that corn is used to feed livestock. Producing meat needs 40 times more calories (in the form of your corn) for example, then you actually get out of it. And I am not even talking about losses along the way (the more you carry around with your foodstuffs before actually eating them, the more gets dropped off left and right, as you already mentioned).</p><p>You are right however it is not only production problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , you analysis is not a very comprehensive one .
There is literature on such things though ( http : //www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/78/3/660S/T1 ) .It is not nutrients .
Proteins are more of a problem .
And since people in the US ( and elsewere ) eat a lot of meat , most of that corn is used to feed livestock .
Producing meat needs 40 times more calories ( in the form of your corn ) for example , then you actually get out of it .
And I am not even talking about losses along the way ( the more you carry around with your foodstuffs before actually eating them , the more gets dropped off left and right , as you already mentioned ) .You are right however it is not only production problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, you analysis is not a very comprehensive one.
There is literature on such things though (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/78/3/660S/T1).It is not nutrients.
Proteins are more of a problem.
And since people in the US (and elsewere) eat a lot of meat, most of that corn is used to feed livestock.
Producing meat needs 40 times more calories (in the form of your corn) for example, then you actually get out of it.
And I am not even talking about losses along the way (the more you carry around with your foodstuffs before actually eating them, the more gets dropped off left and right, as you already mentioned).You are right however it is not only production problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164932</id>
	<title>Now</title>
	<author>BCW2</author>
	<datestamp>1266342420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they could use kudzu it would save the South!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they could use kudzu it would save the South !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they could use kudzu it would save the South!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718</id>
	<title>First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>sajuuk</author>
	<datestamp>1266321780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First post!

And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road, when will my gas prices become reasonable (for the US) again?  I'm tired of $2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First post !
And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road , when will my gas prices become reasonable ( for the US ) again ?
I 'm tired of $ 2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post!
And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road, when will my gas prices become reasonable (for the US) again?
I'm tired of $2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162312</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1266324960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in one of the best transit systems in the us - right outside of chicago - and I still don't have a train that takes me remotely close to my work. Trust me, I'd take one in a heartbeat over using my car, but it's simply not realistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in one of the best transit systems in the us - right outside of chicago - and I still do n't have a train that takes me remotely close to my work .
Trust me , I 'd take one in a heartbeat over using my car , but it 's simply not realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in one of the best transit systems in the us - right outside of chicago - and I still don't have a train that takes me remotely close to my work.
Trust me, I'd take one in a heartbeat over using my car, but it's simply not realistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169304</id>
	<title>Re:First (cheap gas?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I ask, why aren't you lobbying hard to get decent public transport? The answer of course is that you accept paying higher gas prices, and hope that it will come down again soon rather than continue an inexorable rise.</p><p>I know it's not that simple, but you do have to have some foresight. Now is the time to be looking for job and home somewhere where there is decent public transport and/or a short commute (or where one is planned) - before everyone else is doing the same. Start thinking now about how and where you'll want to live in a decade if gas and energy prices continue to rise; and weigh that up against the possibility that we'll avert the problem by finding a technological solutions. The worst thing that you can do is to make no decision and continue with the status quo and then wake up one morning and realise that it's too late: you're paying more than you can afford on gas just to keep living and can't afford to move somewhere else (places with decent public transport will get more and more expensive and places without will get, relatively, cheaper meaning that you can't afford to move).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I ask , why are n't you lobbying hard to get decent public transport ?
The answer of course is that you accept paying higher gas prices , and hope that it will come down again soon rather than continue an inexorable rise.I know it 's not that simple , but you do have to have some foresight .
Now is the time to be looking for job and home somewhere where there is decent public transport and/or a short commute ( or where one is planned ) - before everyone else is doing the same .
Start thinking now about how and where you 'll want to live in a decade if gas and energy prices continue to rise ; and weigh that up against the possibility that we 'll avert the problem by finding a technological solutions .
The worst thing that you can do is to make no decision and continue with the status quo and then wake up one morning and realise that it 's too late : you 're paying more than you can afford on gas just to keep living and ca n't afford to move somewhere else ( places with decent public transport will get more and more expensive and places without will get , relatively , cheaper meaning that you ca n't afford to move ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I ask, why aren't you lobbying hard to get decent public transport?
The answer of course is that you accept paying higher gas prices, and hope that it will come down again soon rather than continue an inexorable rise.I know it's not that simple, but you do have to have some foresight.
Now is the time to be looking for job and home somewhere where there is decent public transport and/or a short commute (or where one is planned) - before everyone else is doing the same.
Start thinking now about how and where you'll want to live in a decade if gas and energy prices continue to rise; and weigh that up against the possibility that we'll avert the problem by finding a technological solutions.
The worst thing that you can do is to make no decision and continue with the status quo and then wake up one morning and realise that it's too late: you're paying more than you can afford on gas just to keep living and can't afford to move somewhere else (places with decent public transport will get more and more expensive and places without will get, relatively, cheaper meaning that you can't afford to move).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162542</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266326100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it.</p></div><p>Well, no. US domestic sugar growers are heavily subsidized and quite adequate to the task of producing all the sugar that the USA needs. So even if the Brazilian crop came up scarce, US sugar prices would be almost totally immune.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it.Well , no .
US domestic sugar growers are heavily subsidized and quite adequate to the task of producing all the sugar that the USA needs .
So even if the Brazilian crop came up scarce , US sugar prices would be almost totally immune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it.Well, no.
US domestic sugar growers are heavily subsidized and quite adequate to the task of producing all the sugar that the USA needs.
So even if the Brazilian crop came up scarce, US sugar prices would be almost totally immune.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992</id>
	<title>Re:Late to the party?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266323280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>don't blame the environmental movement.  corn ethanol gas was a republican corporate welfare program for the farm corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't blame the environmental movement .
corn ethanol gas was a republican corporate welfare program for the farm corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't blame the environmental movement.
corn ethanol gas was a republican corporate welfare program for the farm corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31174762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31170540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31195512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_2040207_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169384
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31163590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31195512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31174762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_2040207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31164018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31170540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31166358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31167230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31168644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162222
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31169304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31165830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31162894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_2040207.31161976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
